As long as we keep subsidizing the poor decisions of the masses, we will dilute the productive capacity of the nation until no level of taxation on those few contributors left will pay for the level of spending we insist is for the benefit of all.
Negative tax rate or welfare, what you call it doesn't make a difference. Contrary to what you may believe, this is not why we are in so much debt. Look at the federal budget and see what difference it would make to cut all welfare and tax the poor at 1% or whatever number floats your boat. Then come back here and tell us what you'd do next to actually lower the deficit. Meanwhile, your 1% tax on poor does nothing for the budget but poor kids have that much less to eat. Crime goes back up to levels seen in the 80s because people are willing to do some serious shit if it is the only way to put food on the table.I am not asking that the tax system be fair.
I think a 0% federal tax rate for the poor is extremely ideal. They are poor and they should not be burdened with paying a large part of their income to federal taxes.
I am not asking the "poor" to pay any more federal taxes.
I simply do not have a problem raising anyone's federal income taxes to a 0% rate.. Why should I? Personally, I think everyone should pay at least 1%, just for the privilege of living in this great country we call the United States of America..
What is wrong with a 0% federal income tax rate for the working poor?
I just believe that a -20 to -30% federal tax rate for a large percentage of the population, has a very, very negative impact on the budget of this country in a time when we are what, 15 trillion in debt.
Again, Why should anyone have a negative federal income tax rate???
Negative tax rate or welfare, what you call it doesn't make a difference. Contrary to what you may believe, this is not why we are in so much debt. Look at the federal budget and see what difference it would make to cut all welfare and tax the poor at 1% or whatever number floats your boat. Then come back here and tell us what you'd do next to actually lower the deficit. Meanwhile, your 1% tax on poor does nothing for the budget but poor kids have that much less to eat. Crime goes back up to levels seen in the 80s because people are willing to do some serious shit if it is the only way to put food on the table.
He shouldn't, but the Democrats could not buy votes without such handouts so don't count on it ever changing until they succeed in driving this country into the ground.
What do you think the effect of raising taxes on the poor would be?
Would it increase support for reductions in government spending or would it result in a demand for more government spending?
I heard someone say that everyone needs to "feel the sting" of a general consumption tax (say, 30% on everything and no refunds either) and that it would result in a desire for lower public spending.
However, I disagree with that person because I think the poor would only ask for something in return for their money. I base that upon the fact that taxes are much more regressive in Europe than they are here and they just spend more on public welfare there. I don't know for sure how many people want a choice as to what their money goes to, but I assume it's not a majority of poor people. Some people will never be satisfied, so I guess it doesn't matter for them at least.
A $100 annual fee to be paid by everyone is really the least harmful centralized tax. $30Bn would still be too much government revenues because the Federal government really doesn't need to exist.
The Dept of state, treasury, and the atty. general's office could each get by on $14Bn combined, a well guarded public sub-armory system on $13Bn, and Congressional salaries, the executive's compensation, running the WH, the Justices' compensation, and running capitol hill on $3Bn.
Negative tax rate or welfare, what you call it doesn't make a difference. Contrary to what you may believe, this is not why we are in so much debt. Look at the federal budget and see what difference it would make to cut all welfare and tax the poor at 1% or whatever number floats your boat. Then come back here and tell us what you'd do next to actually lower the deficit. Meanwhile, your 1% tax on poor does nothing for the budget but poor kids have that much less to eat.
The second half of your statement is already the case. The US hasn't been able to pay for its spending for many years now, already cannot tax enough. This is mathematically untenable long term, undeniably and without exception.As long as we keep subsidizing the poor decisions of the masses, we will dilute the productive capacity of the nation until no level of taxation on those few contributors left will pay for the level of spending we insist is for the benefit of all.
I feel everyone should have a stake in the success of our government. Currently many people are able to enjoy net negative tax rates and their income is subsidized by several thousand dollar tax refunds every year. A friend of mine is married with 3 children and currently earns about $40k per year combined. Each tax season he gets approximately $6,000 back.
Instead of our current system I'd like a flat, progressive tax system. For example (numbers are arbitrary):
$1 - $20,000 of total income: taxed at 1%
$20,001 - $50,000: 5%
$50,001 - $100,000: 10%
$100,001 - $250,000: 15%
$250,001 - $500,000: 20%
$500,001 - $1,000,000: 25%
$1,000,001 - $2,000,000: 30%
$2,000,001+: 35%
No deductions and no tax credits. All income is added together and taxed per this chart. Everyone pays something and there are no tax loopholes for people to wiggle through.
Isn't this exactly how the US tax system is setup? Or do they not get taxed at different rates for different quantiles of your income?
in a word, the effect would be more fair, and only an accountant would consider it a viable idea
So you're saying this would help solve the childhood obesity epidemic in this country.
We ready have a safety net in place to feed our poor and their kids, I am not suggesting we cut those yet but these safety nets definitely need adjusting.. That's another discussion.
Yes there are definitely other areas that need to be cut in the budget. I'm just can't help but wonder why this negative federal tax rate for a substantial percentage of the population is untouchable, other than that it consist of a largely democratic demographic.
Demographics by state. Sorry, no political affiliations.Can you provide evidence that the majority of those with a 'negative tax rate' are more democratic than republican? Poverty in the South is largely a conservative demographic from my own anecdotal observations.
Those things you listed aren't arbitrary. More kids = more mouths to feed. Attending school = less time to work and also potential to earn more at a later date which would = more future tax for the fed. Gambling you can't deduct more losses than winnings. Charity is typically you helping the poor or disease research voluntarily so that is less tax money that needs to go to those places.spittledips idea is actually decent. increasing precentage of taxation based upon increased brackets.
So someone making $150K per year, using his arbitrary chart, would be taxed for $14,200.
Which is:
1% of 20K = 200
5% of 30K = 1500
10% of 50K = 5000
15% of 50K = 7500
20K + 30K + 50K + 50K = 150K
200 + 1500 + 5000 + 7500 = 14,200
I'm not sure how much someone making $150K a year is currently taxed though. Our system is to arbitrary though and gives breaks and deductions based off things like how many kids a person has, if they are attending school, if they gamble, if they donate to charity, and all sorts of crap that favors certain lifestyles over others.
I think the negative income tax is a bad idea especially with minimum wage. However, it's not as bad of an idea as things like food stamps, WIC, school vouchers, and section 8 housing. Society needs to get out of the mindset that everyone should be able to attend school, own a home so they can drive the prices up, etc., etc.I am not asking that the tax system be fair.
I think a 0% federal tax rate for the poor is extremely ideal. They are poor and they should not be burdened with paying a large part of their income to federal taxes.
I am not asking the "poor" to pay any more federal taxes.
I simply do not have a problem raising anyone's federal income taxes to a 0% rate.. Why should I? Personally, I think everyone should pay at least 1%, just for the privilege of living in this great country we call the United States of America..
What is wrong with a 0% federal income tax rate for the working poor?
I just believe that a -20 to -30% federal tax rate for a large percentage of the population, has a very, very negative impact on the budget of this country in a time when we are what, 15 trillion in debt.
Again, Why should anyone have a negative federal income tax rate???
I like this, except I'd cap it at 33%. I don't think government should take more than a third of anyone's money. And I'd count all income, except maybe money that's rolled like selling one home to buy another.I feel everyone should have a stake in the success of our government. Currently many people are able to enjoy net negative tax rates and their income is subsidized by several thousand dollar tax refunds every year. A friend of mine is married with 3 children and currently earns about $40k per year combined. Each tax season he gets approximately $6,000 back.
Instead of our current system I'd like a flat, progressive tax system. For example (numbers are arbitrary):
$1 - $20,000 of total income: taxed at 1%
$20,001 - $50,000: 5%
$50,001 - $100,000: 10%
$100,001 - $250,000: 15%
$250,001 - $500,000: 20%
$500,001 - $1,000,000: 25%
$1,000,001 - $2,000,000: 30%
$2,000,001+: 35%
No deductions and no tax credits. All income is added together and taxed per this chart. Everyone pays something and there are no tax loopholes for people to wiggle through.
And I'd count all income, except maybe money that's rolled
Those things you listed aren't arbitrary. More kids = more mouths to feed. Attending school = less time to work and also potential to earn more at a later date which would = more future tax for the fed. Gambling you can't deduct more losses than winnings. Charity is typically you helping the poor or disease research voluntarily so that is less tax money that needs to go to those places.
in a word, the effect would be horrible, and only an idiot would consider it a viable idea
The theory is that the government taxes income over and above the amount needed to survive (ie: food/clothing/shelter). The person with 5 kids needs more food for his family to survive. I honestly can't believe I have to explain this.I am saying, they should be arbitrary to a GOVERNMENT perspective because the government is not suppose to favor one lifestyle than another. If someone making 100K a year decides to have 5 kids, why should they be taxed less than another person making exactly the same but has no kids? That's government favoring one lifestyle over another. To me, taxation should be impartial to those. If the person making 100K a year with 5 kids can't afford it with his current level of spending versus income, he needs to figure out how to do so my reducing spending or something else.
Other incentive programs, such as donation programs or the like can and SHOULD be used though. The tax code, in my opinion, should not be a donation program. Why should the guy making 100K a year have his tax money go to helping the guy who makes the same but has 5 kids because he had a different life style choice? Hence why I called it ARBITRARY.
As long as we keep subsidizing the poor decisions of the masses, we will dilute the productive capacity of the nation until no level of taxation on those few contributors left will pay for the level of spending we insist is for the benefit of all.
Farm work is admittedly problematic because that is the one place where employers would have problems finding American workers at decent wages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0