Tax Reform

Jul 2014
14,706
8,965
massachusetts
#1
Everyone agrees we need tax reform, but what it looks like when it gets passed is what the lobbyists dictate to the hacks.

How about some principles, like the government should not pick winners and losers.
Should the government treat all income the same for tax purposes?

Should the wages of labor be taxed at the same rate as the wages of capital?

Or is there a reason that we favor owners over workers, beyond the fact that owners "invest" more in the political system in the form of lobbyists and campaign funding than labor does?
 
Likes: 2 people
Nov 2012
5,758
3,491
Kekistan
#2
Everyone agrees we need tax reform, but what it looks like when it gets passed is what the lobbyists dictate to the hacks.

How about some principles, like the government should not pick winners and losers.
Should the government treat all income the same for tax purposes?

Should the wages of labor be taxed at the same rate as the wages of capital?

Or is there a reason that we favor owners over workers, beyond the fact that owners "invest" more in the political system in the form of lobbyists and campaign funding than labor does?
Yeah, every dollar should be taxed at 10% for everyone and every entity. End of story
 
Nov 2012
40,770
11,756
Lebanon, TN
#3
Everyone agrees we need tax reform, but what it looks like when it gets passed is what the lobbyists dictate to the hacks.

How about some principles, like the government should not pick winners and losers.
Should the government treat all income the same for tax purposes?

Should the wages of labor be taxed at the same rate as the wages of capital?

Or is there a reason that we favor owners over workers, beyond the fact that owners "invest" more in the political system in the form of lobbyists and campaign funding than labor does?
Was it perfect, no. Was it better than the tax increases on the middle class we got from Obama.. OH HELL yes

Trump gave the middle class the hope that Obama promised, and a great tax cut too boot.
 
Jul 2014
14,706
8,965
massachusetts
#4
Should income from labor be taxed at the same rate as income from capital?

Should any income receive "special treatment"?
Should the government say "If you get the money like this, you pay more, if you get it like that you pay less"
Should the government decide that this isn't as desirable as that?
 
Feb 2014
2,767
1,250
Oregon
#5
Everyone agrees we need tax reform, but what it looks like when it gets passed is what the lobbyists dictate to the hacks.

How about some principles, like the government should not pick winners and losers.
Should the government treat all income the same for tax purposes?

Should the wages of labor be taxed at the same rate as the wages of capital?

Or is there a reason that we favor owners over workers, beyond the fact that owners "invest" more in the political system in the form of lobbyists and campaign funding than labor does?
What income tax reform means is a matter of a point of view. Before the second world war few people earned enough to pay income taxes, so the majority was not concerned with income taxes. That has changed in the post war years and just about everyone can expect to income taxes. I think this is horribly wrong! It for sure it keeps the poor poor because it guarantees they will never have the income essential to buying a home or a building for a business, so they can not get ahead in life. Our constitution had to be changed for this to happen.

Income taxes before the Pollock case
Until 1913, customs duties (tariffs) and excise taxes were the primary sources of federal revenue.[3] During the War of 1812, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander J. Dallas made the first public proposal for an income tax, but it was never implemented.[4] The Congress did introduce an income tax to fund the Civil War through the Revenue Act of 1861.[5] It levied a flat tax of three percent on annual income above $800. This act was replaced the following year with the Revenue Act of 1862, which levied a graduated tax of three to five percent on income above $600 and specified a termination of income taxation in 1866. The Civil War income taxes, which expired in 1872, proved to be both highly lucrative and drawing mostly from the more industrialized states, with New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts generating about 60 percent of the total revenue that was collected.[6] During the two decades following the expiration of the Civil War income tax, the Greenback movement, the Labor Reform Party, the Populist Party, the Democratic Party and many others called for a graduated income tax.[6]

The Socialist Labor Party advocated a graduated income tax in 1887.[7] The Populist Party "demand[ed] a graduated income tax" in its 1892 platform.[8] The Democratic Party, led by William Jennings Bryan, advocated the income tax law passed in 1894,[9] and proposed an income tax in its 1908 platform.[10]

Before Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., all income taxes had been considered to be indirect taxes imposed without respect to geography, unlike direct taxes, that have to be apportioned among the states according to population.[11][12]
To me, a reform would be returning to not taxing people until they are in an income bracket that covers their expenses with money left over for them advance, or at least have enough to buy stocks and bonds. We are not being realistic about this, talking as though people who have nothing but Social Security in their old age, are in a bad way simply because they made bad choices, instead of acknowledging their financial reality. Without housing assistance, food assistance, Medicare, and Medicaid many elderly people experience destitution and can even end up on the streets as we are being priced out of our housing. Poverty kills. Low-income housing is not keeping pace with the demand for low-income housing, and maybe if younger people knew the reality they face, we would have a revolution.
 
Likes: 1 person
Feb 2014
2,767
1,250
Oregon
#6
Should income from labor be taxed at the same rate as income from capital?

Should any income receive "special treatment"?
Should the government say "If you get the money like this, you pay more, if you get it like that you pay less"
Should the government decide that this isn't as desirable as that?

The answer to your question is a strong no! And people who work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, should not be taxed as though they earn this in 40 hour weeks. There for sure should be a compensation for the number of hours worked to earn that income! Also, overseas workers are not paying income taxes and I would to see what this means in a shift of taxes to compensate for this lost source of revenue.

We have an economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and as the raitio of people and resources means less for everyone, and for sure a higher cost of living, things will get much worse for low-income people.

Another issue is robotics and computers have taken jobs from thousands of people, and these labor devices are not taxed like humans can be taxed. We need to get real about this and adjust to our changed reality.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2014
14,706
8,965
massachusetts
#7
The answer to your question is a strong no! And people who work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, should not be taxed as though they earn this in 40 hour weeks. There for sure should be a compensation for the number of hours worked to earn that income! Also, overseas workers are not paying income taxes and I would to see what this means in a shift of taxes to compensate for this lost source of revenue.

We have an economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and as the raitio of people and resources means less for everyone, and for sure a higher cost of living, things will get much worse for low-income people.

Another issue is robotics and computers have taken jobs from thousands of people, and these labor devices are not taxed like humans can be taxed. We need to get real about this and adjust to our changed reality.
So the tax should be graduated, no tax below a certain point, then a small tax, with a rate that increases as income goes up.
With rates set at a point that the distribution of wealth becomes less concentrated every year that goes by.
 
Jul 2015
5,231
2,298
chicago
#8
So the tax should be graduated, no tax below a certain point, then a small tax, with a rate that increases as income goes up.
With rates set at a point that the distribution of wealth becomes less concentrated every year that goes by.
The rate should be fixed for all income levels and loopholes removed.
 
Likes: 1 person
Feb 2014
2,767
1,250
Oregon
#9
So the tax should be graduated, no tax below a certain point, then a small tax, with a rate that increases as income goes up.
With rates set at a point that the distribution of wealth becomes less concentrated every year that goes by.
I am not sure we are thinking about this in the best way?

What I do think is important is not tax people until they have discretionary income to tax, and that figuring the amount of taxes a person pays needs to include allowing enough money to invest in the future and it is important to compensate a person for the hours it takes a person to earn that money.

If everyone could afford stocks and bonds, we might not be so dependent on a the few who can? AND this reasoning should go with replacing our autocratic industry with democratic industry and a return to education for democracy. We need to be more holistic in our thinking and improve education so people can think in mathematical terms before voting. That would be a huge improvement! We can not get better decisions until people are educated to make better decisions.

The democratic model of industry has many benefits including preparing people for better relationships and better decision making. I totally do not understand why we are so proud of our democracy and so blind to the autocratic control of our lives and economy?
 
Jul 2014
14,706
8,965
massachusetts
#10
The rate should be fixed for all income levels and loopholes removed.
The theory of decreasing marginal utility supports a system of graduated rates as being most favorable to growth.

The more of something a person has, the less each additional unit is worth.
Graduated rates take more of the dollars that are worth less, and less of the dollars that are worth more, removing less value from the economy.
 

Similar Discussions