After Hours

Ask something
Discussion Locked

U.S. Tax reform ideas

0 helpful
49 replies

by chdchan 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

(1) Incentives to tax-payers for tax prepayment (early birds), e.g. rebate or discount coupons for shopping, or governmental bonds;
(2) Higher income cashflow by more frequent tax payment by monthly instalments for the same amount that previously paid annually;
(3) Lowering taxes for successful re-entrants to employment market to stimulate more taxation incomes;
(4) Higher taxes for monopolized or near-monopolized businesses, and globalization players that have capitalized much on industry export.

49 replies

by cmiller5400

$200,000 is too low for a primary cutoff, IMHO. Where I live, the median prices in the towns around me range from 300,000 to 500,000 for a single family home.

Dump the second home exemption, if you can afford two, you don't need the tax break.

by maxwell edison

...... when people advocate a large command and control federal government.

It also illustrates the problems generated when people like us try to decide, debate, or discuss what's best for other people - and then use government to implement "our desires" over them.

by charliespencer

"(3) Lowering taxes for successful re-entrants to employment market to stimulate more taxation incomes"

I don't agree with this one. It assumes the current taxes rates are a factor keeping people from seeking or accepting employment. People don't turn down jobs because it would result in them paying taxes.

by chdchan

By lowering profit tax for corporation offering much staff salary raise, employers will be encouraged to raise salaries for staff that convert to overall higher government tax incomes. This also enhances job satisfaction, and boosts the employment market plus consumer market as well.

by aidemzo_adanac

This week on How to Do it!

Alan: Hello.

Noel: Hello.

Alan: Well, last week we showed you how to become a gynaecologist. And this week on 'How to do it' we're going to show you how to play the flute, how to split an atom, how to construct a box girder bridge, how to irrigate the Sahara Desert and make vast new areas of land cultivatable, but first, here's Jackie to tell you all how to rid the world of all known diseases.

Jackie: Hello, Alan.

Alan: Hello, Jackie.

Jackie: Well, first of all become a doctor and discover a marvellous cure for something, and then, when the medical profession really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right so there'll never be any diseases ever again.

Alan: Thanks, Jackie. Great idea. How to play the flute. (picking up a flute) Well here we are. You blow in this end and you wiggle your fingers up and down the other end.

Noel: Great, great, Alan. Well, next week we'll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony, and Alan will be over in Moscow showing us how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. So, until next week, cheerio.

by john.a.wills

Get rid of corporate income tax (I am not saying get rid of taxes with a definite relation to government benefits received): firms will then either pay higher wages or increase dividends so that personal income tax will recover what was lost from the corporate income tax in proportion not to the overall profit of the firms but to the total income of the employees and shareholders. A secondary benefit would be that when firms needed new capital they would no longer be so inclined to get it by bonds (interest on which is tax-deductible) as by issuing new equity.

by aidemzo_adanac

Sorry if this seems stupid but taxation is something I usually leave to my accountant. I'll absorb law, religion, science, mechanical engineering etc but taxes and government income loses me, maybe its the many pockets where I lose track of the money, which is also odd because I make deals and sign contracts for a living.

From what I understand, if your system is ANYTHING like ours, personal income tax is based on income level. The more you make, the more they take. Am I still right ?

I always enjoyed US income because I was taxed less than in Canada and a LOT less than UK takes too (but I think that is just the nature of the income being entertainment/royalties).

I know that if I get a raise I always look for a really fat one, otherwise it'l l be just enough to put me in the next tax bracket and I end up taking home less net pay despite a raise.

That said, if companies gave employees more, the employees would be put into a higher tax bracket and would lose out.

Is it really different in the US? I didn't think we were that far apart.

by av .

If you make more, they take more, but I think we have some flexibility through tax loopholes. Mostly, the rich take advantage of loopholes, but there are also some for the little folk if they have a small business and can write off expenses.

I think john.a.wills is saying that getting rid of the corporate income tax will create higher wages. I don't know if thats true, but if it was lowered, it would likely make us more competitive in the global economy.

AV

by aidemzo_adanac

More competitive in the global economy. I assume you are referring to outsourcing and manufacturing. Bottom line, if Americans were willing to work for less, which they aren't, there would be no need for outsourcing. You need a certain income to meet the cost of living of course too.

What doesn't work though is that in order to provide your most basic needs for a consumer driven nation, you rely on world imports just to exist. America is an importer, not an exporter. Other nations rely on your cash flow, when our dollar goes up everyone is happy, "great, now everything in the States is cheaper, let's go shopping". In the process we lose billions in export money for oil, grains, fish, electricity, lumber and everything else we sell to the US. So things up here become more expensive, it drives your economy but kills ours.

Anyway, back to taxation. Getting rid of corporate income tax would save corporations billions, if you think that $3 of that would make its way into workers pockets as a raise, you surely haven't seen any American corporations in action.

Think of the government. If they saved 22 billion dollars somehow, ANYWHERE, do you think one red cent of it would be given back to the people or that taxes would be lowered? Not in a million moons.

There are so many places where tax money can be deferred to, there's no way it makes its way back to people. That's why I don't understand people whining about welfare or medical, IF that money were saved, you wouldn't benefit in any way shape or form from it, it's just spent on something else you may or may not agree with.

I have a gazillion write offs myself, but a raise is still a raise. I have the same number of write offs, no matter what I earn for doing the same job. Earning more would just mean higher taxes and less in my pocket than I already have. Cutting the company's taxes would mean they pay less in tax but they'd have the same write offs or find even more.

Doesn't help me either way, in fact unless I was given a 35% raise, I'd pretty much break even. A couple of bucks an hour here and there won't do anything but reduce my take home pay.

by john.a.wills

but then surely higher dividends, also taxable as personal income. I did write "total income of the employees and shareholders". Corporate income tax is actually an indirect tax masquerading as a direct one.

by av .

That tax revenues would be enough? If people had no income taxes, it doesn't guarantee that they would spend the extra money in the economy and generate enough revenue to fund the government.

I would love it to be that way, but think it would come up short.

AV

by maxwell edison

Putting aside for a moment the "funding" that the federal government SHOULD NOT be providing.......

Putting aside for a moment the intended role of the federal government.........

Putting aside for a moment the concept of individual liberty........

Putting aside for a moment the difference between state and federal government, a difference of which many Americans are totally oblivious, I might add.

Putting aside for a moment that there are no "guarantees" in life.......

And putting aside for a moment that all too many people ARE looking for GUARANTEES in life - from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT at the expense of others.......

Your question seems rather silly since the current income tax system does not provide enough money for the gluttons in government to "fund" everything they've currently managed to muck up. We're borrowing half of what we're spending now!

Except under the most dire of national emergencies, government SPENDING should be kept below a certain percentage of the GPD, twenty percent, for example, and just let those chips fall where they may.

P.S. Also a balanced budget Amendment should be passed at the same time we repeal the tyrannical 16th Amendment.

P.P.S. When someone FORCES you to hand over the fruits of YOUR labor, you are a slave - period. Whether they force you to labor or force you to hand over the fruits of your labor, there's no difference.

by maxwell edison

Do a little research and discover what kind of "guarantee" (promise) the progressives were making - the progressive proponents of the income tax - to those who opposed it.

It will go something like this:

Only the top wage earners (top single digit percent) will face an income tax, never lower income earners, and the income tax rate will not exceed 3 percent, or something like that.

Camel's nose theory on steroids.

"Guarantee" from government? Are you kidding me?

by charliespencer

Groceries (not prepared foods / restaurants), medication, clothing under ... oh, let's start at $50?

Does payment for services, where no physical goods are exchanged, count as consumption?

by maxwell edison

Agree to the underlying principle, and we can discuss the finer details. If people want to find reasons to shoot down any idea, they'll do it. But it's harder to shoot down an underlying principle.

by av .

What's to prevent the government from just raising the consumption tax or expanding it to include more things to feed our behemoth government? Absolutely nothing.

A consumption tax is not going to force them to stop spending. The only thing that will stop that is recognition by both parties that there is a spending problem and redefining what the role of government really should be. That won't happen anytime soon with the current leadership in Washington.

AV

by maxwell edison

I repeat, agree to the underlying principle, and we can discuss the finer details. If people want to find reasons to shoot down any idea, they'll do it. But it's harder to shoot down an underlying principle.

P.S. I find it amusing that you're simply making unfounded assertions and drawing your conclusion from them.

by av .

I don't think it will force the government to live within its means.

Government needs a real kick in the pants before it will even address the problem of spending. A dire crisis is what is needed. The great recession wasn't enough to do it.

Take for example the Newtown and Aurora shootings. Finally, there is meaningful conversation in this country, on both sides of the aisle, about what to do about the violence in this country and an acknowledgement that maybe it isn't the gun, its the sick people that get their hands on them.

AV

by av .

It isn't likely that they will ever repeal the 16th amendment for the reasons you stated or any other reason. Your dirty little secret is an interesting observation. I never really looked at it that way, but yes. It does give them control over the population and the revenue is the icing on the cake.

One thing that might work is if we were no longer able to borrow more money. What if our lenders put the brakes on our borrowing?

AV

PS: Sorry for mentioning the "G" word.

by maxwell edison

.... would be the mother of all [i]kicks in the pants[/i]!

Geesh!

Of course, considering the ignorance and gullibility of the typical American voter, we could never get enough congressional representation to garner the two-thirds vote necessary for repeal. I tend to think that two-thirds of the states might be in support, but why would Congress willingly give up the very thing that gives them POWER over the populace.

The dirty little secret, AV, is that the national income tax isn't intended to generate revenue as much as it's used to control the population.

Geesh again!

Disclaimer: The clarity of this message is entirely dependent on the reader's understanding of the constitutional amendment process, the intent of State's rights, etc.. which, I might guess, is another thing that's totally oblivious to the typical American voter.

P.S. Oh my GOD! Did you HAVE TO MENTION GUNS?

GEESH on steroids!

by maxwell edison

But I won't presume to speak for other people in other countries, nor will I presume to tell them how to live their lives; I'm speaking for myself as a citizen of the United States.

by john.a.wills

"My country is the world, my countrymen all mankind". They never believed that in the Confederacy, of course, and the formerly Confederate states eventually made some cultural conquests in the rest of the U.S. Of course, you are right, Max, if you are talking about modularity of government, but at present if the US sneezes the world catches cold, so the modularity is already broken.

by aidemzo_adanac

Max, your JOB just like all others, is, in your view, slavery. I fully agree with that also. I don't WANT to work for someone else everyday, I must though. I have my own things going too but, as you know, I am letting it all simmer these days. That means I have to work for a SHMOE that agrees he needs me for his business to succeed but he will often try to micromanage me anyway.
"My boss comes right out and tells me, I hired you because you are a professional with an excellent skill set that I really need." 10 minutes later he tries to tell me how I should be doing my job, but he pays me to listen to him and I do things HIS way, sometimes, just to show him that keeping his mouth shut is probably best for his company.

Yes, Max, I'm a working stiff again!

The only reason ANYONE works for someone else is 100% for a paycheck. We are forced to be employed. We train for slavery from the time we are toddlers at the Kindergarten Slavery Training Academy. It goes on for 12 more years! We better be good little slaves after 12 years of training! Some go on to being ranch owners and hire slaves themselves bu tit is not proportional to the number of slaves themselves.

All that BS about people loving their work, enjoying going to work each day etc is all pure BS. You can ENJOY your job but you wouldn't go to someone else's office each day and work for free . Sure you might start your OWN business doing the same thing but then you are making more money and working for yourself, when you want to work.

I'm totally lost now, started this post 40 mins ago and just got back to it, I think I'm way off topic now so I'll let it ride. Cheers Max!

DISCLOSURE: this commentary is in no way presented to equate the oppressive slavery, commonly recognized in our history, to the working life we all MUST face today. No man, woman or child of any race, colour or creed were enslaved due to writing of this copy. The preceding comments were intended purely for entertainment purposes and are in now way intended to cast a humourous light on nor reflect on our nation's inexcusable actions as being comedic in any way.

by aidemzo_adanac

You are right, guns don't kill people ,PEOPLE, kill people...with guns. You can never posibly rid the US of guns, with thousands smuggled in each month and a few hundred million possible consumers, it's as idiotic as trying to ban alcohol or marijuana.
With such a massive population though, you also have a massive number of sick people. It is too easy for those sick people to buy a gun and commit a crime.

I am not for RIDDING the guns but at least making it a wee bit harder for a nutcase to go and buy one. In Canada, there is a mandatory processing period, you can't walk into a sporting goods store and walk out an hour later with a firearm, unless you have already cleared all your paperwork. The result is that it removes a lot of impulse and reactionary murders. That and the fact that our government absolutely loves bureaucratic bullshite and red tape.
I'll be the first to say our government sucks too, I admit it and accept it as something I have to accept if I want to live here. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Canada's government is right or better in any way, simply that we can all learn from each other and it seems that such problems are worse in the US than most other prosperous, free nations. Yes, America actually could learn something from another nation, whether Canada, UK, France, Germany, Australia, etc. It seems that if such policies are adopted, toward any matter, Americans don't like it one bit.

In the recent case it was a gun stolen from home, therefore a mandatory wait period wouldn't have had an effect, or would it? If it was a little harder to just go out and buy a firearm, fewer people would bother, yes...because of lazy consumers, his home might not have had a firearm to steal to begin with.

Sorry for the hijack, back to Max and taxes.

by maxwell edison

Don't you mean .... [i]"back to some guy living in China, Hong Kong, or wherever, who thinks he knows all about the USA and its tax system and what will make it better?"[/i]

by cmiller5400

WHO should be making these decisions if not "us"?

I'm not advocating for a large government; never once mentioned it. Just said that in MY case, that cap wouldn't be fair. Not all markets are the same so a house that is worth 300,000 here is probably worth 150,000 some where else.

by charliespencer

When you say "This illustrates on of the problems...", what are you referring to by 'This'? Mortgage interest deductions? Eliminating them above a certain value? Debating the issue?

Sorry, your indirect object lost me. What in the previous couple of posts do you think is illuminating the problem you describe?

by charliespencer

I'm in agreement with the underlying principle. It's just that I've seen too much legislation passed at various levels that left the details to be determined later.

I even more strongly support the notion of a balanced budget amendment. But let's get really freaky and mandate Congress pass an annual budget, even an unbalanced one, before Oct 1st or else not get paid until they do.

by aidemzo_adanac

I read Pametto's comment three times looking for a reference to an ANIMAL budget. I wondered what he had said that got you to see an Animal Budget as a novel idea. Yeah, I need glasses, but so does everyone who asks an optometrist. I never got that part, why would I ask a car dealer if I need a car? Why ask a Realtor if you need a new home? Why are optometrists allowed to conduct eye exams instead of a non biased third party? Don't get me started on DOCTORS! They always say you're sick and sell you more drugs. I think there should be a doctors training facility for recommendations only, then another to sell drugs to you.

by maxwell edison

I see Palmetto and cmiller discussing what kind of mortgage deduction is appropriate. What may be appropriate for one may not be appropriate for the other. Palmetto should make decisions for Palmetto; cmiller should make decisions for cmiller, and the government should butt out.

It shows the lunacy of the federal government "one size fits all" solutions. And it shows why states should take back power from the federal government.

The whole federal tax structure is a sham. You should be debating the merits of the entire tax structure instead of focusing on one individual nuance of it.

by charliespencer

Unfortunately, I think working in small chunks is the only feasible approach. We can debate at any level we want but when it comes to Congressional action, it becomes a question of holding out for everything on principle and getting nothing, or pragmatically accepting a percentage if that's all that's possible.

I'm reminded of the Linux advocates who refuse to install any closed source or proprietary drivers for video or NIC. The proprietary drivers may solve some of their problems, but installing them compromises those users open source integrity.

by maxwell edison

A complex tax overhaul not being possible, at least in the near future. But regardless, instead of chipping away at the small chunks of overall system - which only lends legitimacy to the overall system - I'd rather focus on the underlying problem.

If you have a junker of an automobile that's better suited for the junk yard, why argue over what color to paint it? The better discussion would be how to replace it.

by av .

We created this unbelievable tax nightmare in this country by allowing all kinds of loopholes. Its just ridiculous. We should scrap the whole thing and start over. Even if we just do it a little at a time.

AV

by aidemzo_adanac

You know I give you far more credit than that. I was reading this thread through and I completely see your frustration, it's none of 'their' business but you are being courteous all the same.

As mentioned earlier, it's not my field of expertise at all but I do learn from reading these posts, as long as you aren't on a rant about the G-Main.

Maybe it's healthy for you to have patience and share your beliefs and knowledge with foreign nations. We live in a global economy now, although your system of taxation differs from others, it does get people thinking and I think that's a good thing.

Aw, hell, what do I know, have at 'er Max, chew 'em up and spit 'em out. :p

by Member 25348569

Pardon me for commenting, but your little dose of sub-prime mortgage 'flu certainly didn't help anyone, anywhere.

by aidemzo_adanac

If Americans catch a cold, they will blame the rest of the world because the rest of the world couldn't survive without them.

by maxwell edison

Consider this:

The government passes a law that mandates every citizen must spend X amount of time on a work farm. I actually know a lady this happened to. She's my age, and she grew up in China. Enough said. I think you know what she had to do; part of that cultural revolution in China. (I wonder if they still force teenagers to go to work camps in China.)

No, no,no, we might say. You can't FORCE someone to work for the benefit of another. That's slavery. And I don't think anyone would disagree.

Okay, the forced labor people might say; we won't make you work for a full year, we'll only make you work for four months of the year, so the remaining 8 months that person can work for her/himself.

But that's STILL four months of slavery, one might rebut.

Okay, you go ahead and work your regular job, the forced labor people might say, and you go ahead and get paid for the full 12 months of your work. But pay us 30 percent of what you earn.

Am I the idiot for comparing forced taxation on income to forcing someone to labor? Or are the slaves the idiots for not recognizing what they are?

The GDP in the USA is around 15 Trillion dollars per year. That means there's 15 Trillion dollars of spending, investing, consuming, etc.

If the government needs 3 Trillion dollars in revenue, for example, which is about what they collect in income taxes, it would be 20 percent of the GDP. Whether the dollars are taxed on the earning end or the spending end, it doesn't mean a decrease in revenue collected or a decrease in the GDP.

Contrary to the stupid notions advanced around here, "rich people" do not stuff money into mattresses. They spend, spend, spend. Find a way to exempt lower income people from being subjected to a consumption tax on the staples of life, and everyone would get by just fine.

And we wouldn't have the immoral practice of the government taking away the fruits of a person's labor.

by aidemzo_adanac

I know you get hammered by people for cryptic posts (or was it just me that did that?) but it is nice to see a couple of good examples to illustrate your comment. I don't think I'm stupid, nor do most people that know me, but I hate it when I just can't see a point properly.

I understand what you mean by forced labour, though I think it starts to stretch when you equate income taxes to slavery. On the other hand, I completely see your viewpoint now, you have commented about less government and taxes for years and it's always been a bit vague as to why. This puts it all into perspective now.

While, theoretically, I see it and agree for the most part, i think that expecting an income tax free society is a bit harsh. As for consumer taxes, after seeing the kaibosh here for the last 13 years, I just focus on earning enough money that it doesn't effect my quality of life and I can ignore it.

I completely understand that inaction and acceptance is a big part of the problem and that it is up to the people to speak out. As you know though, I won't complain about how our country is run as I don't do anything to change it. I would have to become a Canadian citizen and that's money followed by years of waiting, which I'll have to do one day I suppose. Yes, I see the irony. Don't want to fork out so I can speak out but justify earning more to accommodate taxes I should be speaking out about. (follow that?)

Your post really started me thinking now, which is the most awesome part of these water cooler discussions. Now I'll actually process some work, make a few more bucks and think on it some more to avoid a knee jerk reply.

Thanks again, for a very insightful comment.

This discussion is closed to new replies.