Tax reforms I would like to see

A progressive tax isn't that complicated, though, and needn't have loopholes (although poilitics being what they are, it's inevitable you'll have som regardless of your taxation scheme).

biochem wrote:

I don't like flat tax as each should contribute proportunate to their ability to do so.

Most flat tax proposals I have seen have a floor. So for example with a 20% rate and a floor of $20,000 per individual a married couple with no children who make $50,000 would only pay taxes on $10,000 of that income or $2000 in taxes annually. But if the same couple made $100,000 they would pay taxes on $60,000 or $12,000 annually. And for a couple making $1 million, the floor would be such a small % of their income, it would effectively cease to exist.

Frankly such a simple system would produce a tax stream which is a lot more fair than the byzantine system we use today. Currently the really rich use a variety of loopholes to pay a very low effective tax rate even though their rate is nominally quite high, the poor pay no income tax at all, and the middle class gets socked. With a flat tax which has a floor, the rich will actually have to pay, the middle class will still have to pay and the poor will still pay no income taxes.

A by the way comment for the original post anybody remember "9/9/9"?

Well lets see the kids got their education from someone cheating the system. Which is what I understood from my reading of the post.

Nope life isn't about fair. But if the parent knows his crime is going to cost the kids it may encourage proper behavior. Is it going to work all the time not a chance.

It is not "unconscionable and incredibly cruel" for someone to steal (tax) money from me to better themselves but it is for them to be required to payback the stolen money they benefited from. Isn't that a double standard? <sarcasm>Oh they only stole a fraction of it from me personally that makes it all better.<end sarcasm>


Enjoy,
T2M

Donnachaidh wrote:This is beyond too far. Repayment of all fraudulently obtained funds and a fine if it was malicious is appropriate. Your suggestion would punish people simply for being related to someone. And it would likely send people (the part about the person's children being made responsible for their parent(s)' fraud) who had NOTHING to do with the fraud into crippling debt. Your idea is unconscionable and incredibly cruel.

If kids didn't know where their parents got the money how is it their responsibility?

While life certainly isn't fair, that doesn't absolve us of trying to make if more fair. Holding someone responsible for the actions of another is wrong.

The person who commits a crime is the person responsible for it. Others are not, no matter how closely related they are. And the government (or anyone else for that matter) threatening a person's livelihood to enforce someone else's appropriate behavior is fundamentally wrong.

You're advocating for the punishment of people who committed no crime. Which is why I began my post saying that repayment of the fraudulently obtained funds and a fine if the fraud was malicious (and it isn't always, sometimes people honestly misunderstand regulations) is appropriate. That's not to say that if someone had full knowledge of the fraud they shouldn't be punished, but there are already laws for that (conspiracy laws).

How would you like to be held responsible for someone else's actions that you had no say and no control over?

thinkstoomuch wrote:A by the way comment for the original post anybody remember "9/9/9"?

Well lets see the kids got their education from someone cheating the system. Which is what I understood from my reading of the post.

Nope life isn't about fair. But if the parent knows his crime is going to cost the kids it may encourage proper behavior. Is it going to work all the time not a chance.

It is not "unconscionable and incredibly cruel" for someone to steal (tax) money from me to better themselves but it is for them to be required to payback the stolen money they benefited from. Isn't that a double standard? <sarcasm>Oh they only stole a fraction of it from me personally that makes it all better.<end sarcasm>


Enjoy,
T2M

Donnachaidh wrote:This is beyond too far. Repayment of all fraudulently obtained funds and a fine if it was malicious is appropriate. Your suggestion would punish people simply for being related to someone. And it would likely send people (the part about the person's children being made responsible for their parent(s)' fraud) who had NOTHING to do with the fraud into crippling debt. Your idea is unconscionable and incredibly cruel.

A by the way comment for the original post anybody remember "9/9/9"?

Only if it's put in place by constitutional amendment. Otherwise we will soon have 10/10/10 then 11/11/11 etc.

Donnachaidh wrote:If kids didn't know where their parents got the money how is it their responsibility?

While life certainly isn't fair, that doesn't absolve us of trying to make if more fair. Holding someone responsible for the actions of another is wrong.

The person who commits a crime is the person responsible for it. Others are not, no matter how closely related they are. And the government (or anyone else for that matter) threatening a person's livelihood to enforce someone else's appropriate behavior is fundamentally wrong.

You're advocating for the punishment of people who committed no crime. Which is why I began my post saying that repayment of the fraudulently obtained funds and a fine if the fraud was malicious (and it isn't always, sometimes people honestly misunderstand regulations) is appropriate. That's not to say that if someone had full knowledge of the fraud they shouldn't be punished, but there are already laws for that (conspiracy laws).

How would you like to be held responsible for someone else's actions that you had no say and no control over?

Let us say I am doctor defrauding Medicare to the tune of $1.5 million/year. Under your idea, all I have to do to avoid paying anything back to the government is establish trust funds for my children and wife and deposit the money there. I don't have to tell them the money is stolen. I don't even have to tell them the accounts exist. As executor of the trust funds, I have access to the money to use as I please. If I am caught, all I have to do is keep my mouth shut about the existence of the accounts when questioned. Since it is my childrens account whether or not they know about it or not, an IRS search for my accounts might not even find them. All I have to do is serve my 18 month sentence and when I get out all that money is still waiting for me.

You're still missing the part I have specifically stated TWICE "repayment of the fraudulently obtained funds and a fine if the fraud was malicious is appropriate".

Again, you're advocating for the punishment of people who have not broken the law.

Sir William Blackstone, 1765 wrote:Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

KNick wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:If kids didn't know where their parents got the money how is it their responsibility?

While life certainly isn't fair, that doesn't absolve us of trying to make if more fair. Holding someone responsible for the actions of another is wrong.

The person who commits a crime is the person responsible for it. Others are not, no matter how closely related they are. And the government (or anyone else for that matter) threatening a person's livelihood to enforce someone else's appropriate behavior is fundamentally wrong.

You're advocating for the punishment of people who committed no crime. Which is why I began my post saying that repayment of the fraudulently obtained funds and a fine if the fraud was malicious (and it isn't always, sometimes people honestly misunderstand regulations) is appropriate. That's not to say that if someone had full knowledge of the fraud they shouldn't be punished, but there are already laws for that (conspiracy laws).

How would you like to be held responsible for someone else's actions that you had no say and no control over?

Let us say I am doctor defrauding Medicare to the tune of $1.5 million/year. Under your idea, all I have to do to avoid paying anything back to the government is establish trust funds for my children and wife and deposit the money there. I don't have to tell them the money is stolen. I don't even have to tell them the accounts exist. As executor of the trust funds, I have access to the money to use as I please. If I am caught, all I have to do is keep my mouth shut about the existence of the accounts when questioned. Since it is my childrens account whether or not they know about it or not, an IRS search for my accounts might not even find them. All I have to do is serve my 18 month sentence and when I get out all that money is still waiting for me.

Good example KNick about the fraudulent doctor, but there is a more ethical way of dealing with such a problem. Either change the law or ensure the current laws allow forensic accountants to trace the paper trail. If the money in other's accounts has come from the fraud then reclaim it. This keeps innocents safe from a blanket confiscation.
Quite a few years ago one of our biggest entrepreneurs was convicted of fraud and jailed. He got divorced, declared bankruptcy and had virtually no assets. When his ex wife and sons picked him up from jail they were among the ten richest people in the country, and after a holiday he was right back doing deals. That was very wrong and the law should have been able to do something about it.
I knew people who suicided after losing their life savings to con men, and believe that whenever a major corporate fraud is committed more people die from it than in a gun rampage, so such people are guilty of mass murder and should be sentenced as such.

Donnachaidh wrote:You're still missing the part I have specifically stated TWICE "repayment of the fraudulently obtained funds and a fine if the fraud was malicious is appropriate".

Again, you're advocating for the punishment of people who have not broken the law.

Sir William Blackstone, 1765 wrote:Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

To some extent I agree with you. Where we differ is on whether or not the children are innocent. While they might not have a hand in the actual fraud, they are profiting from the commission of a crime. Let me repeat that. They are profiting from the commission of a crime. How is it not fair that procedes from a crime be recovered for the rightful owners.

As far as being punished for something I did not do, that happens every time I pay my car insurance. In 45 years of driving, I have never been in an accident, yet I pay the value of my vehicle every 6 months in premiums. I have to pay that much because some people want to replace their car every year.

For medical insurance, my premiums for the last ten years are thousands more than I have received in treatment. That is in spite of having two minor surgeries in that time. It also includes on the job injuries that required ER attention. Those premiums reflect the people who have no insurance and skip out on their bills. By your reasoning I should not have to pay so much for either kind of insurance. Yet I am required by law to have both kinds of insurance and pay whatever the companies say my premium should be.

KNick wrote:First and foremost, a flat tax rate for everyone for any source of income. Capitol Gains, Wages or rental income). Preferably somewhere around 15-20%

Gee a 20% flat tax rate would increase my tax payment by a measly 1000% or so, and here I am worried about the 50+% increase that is about to hit me on Jan 1.

I actually have a much simpler over all US employee income tax form:

Write down your income, subtract from that 1.5-2 times the poverty level for a family of your size. If the number is zero or below you owe no taxes. If the number is above zero you pay 15-20% of the that amount. There are no other deductions.

For corporations: They take their income, subtract off employee salaries, insurance contributions, etc. (employee pay stuff), "raw" materials (things used in the manufacturing or operating of the business this would be a strict definition), 15-20% of the remainder is paid in taxes. No other deductions.

No deductions beyond actual operating expenses and R&D for businesses.

Do you know how flexible the term "operating expenses and R&D is? Your local McDonalds wouldn't pay taxes.

100% of interest on home loans deductable for the primary residence only.

Why? Why do people get a tax deduction for buying a home? Why don't renters get the same deduction for the part of their rent that goes for interest on the loan their rent is paying off?

No deduction for charitable contributions beyond $1,000.

Why any deduction, those that give to charity will still give to charity. What you will lose is the big showy endowments to charities that aren't really charities. People will still give to their churches, the Red Cross, and the others doing the real charitable works.

R&D funds received from the government to be treated as income by businesses and as a grant if received by a University.

How about just cutting the R&D funds from the government? Do we really need to know how long a shrimp can "run" on a treadmill? http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbu ... payers.htm If the shrimping industry needs to know something about the shrimp they are catching, then they can pay for it.

In the cases of fraud involving government funds (including Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare payments), confiscation of 100% of all real property, income and gifts bestowed by the perpitrator (including anything in the wife's, husband's, chidren's and parents names. Forfiture of any and professional licenses held by the above. Repayment by the children for education paid for with fraudulent money. All recovered funds to be returned to the agency defrauded.

I certainly can't agree with going after someone's parents assets. I can agree with going after any assets that can be proven to come from the perpetrator. Permanent forfeiture of all licenses and permits to work etc. A lengthy prison term would help too, in a real prison with walls and guards and no A/C, cable TV or spa treatments.

[/quote]Legalization and taxation of marijuana at the same or higher rates as alchohol.[/quote]

Can't agree with this one, although I am all for the forfeiture of assets along with the convictions of the crimes.

Any company paid perks, (trips, vacations, medical treatment, etc.) counted as income and taxed accordingly. This would not include medical insurance.

Everything should be taxed, if you come up with an excuse to leave one thing out, someone will come up with an excuse to leave other things out. Medical insurance paid for by an employer is part of income that not every employee gets.

Taxation of income of companies from overseas to be the same as US companies.

Have to check with appropriate treaties here, but said employees would have to pay any shortfall differences from taxes paid overseas to what would be owed in the US.

US companies operating overseas to be taxed on all income, including that earned overseas.

Again you have to check with appropriate treaties, and see above.

Of course on the other end, there needs to be massive spending controls. I would start with Congress, each Congressman gets their salary, and a budget that they can spend on operating their office. Once that budget is expended anything further comes out of the Congressman's pocket, including stamps, travel home, aides, secretaries, travel junkets, coffee, whatever. No more freebies for congress.

Federal Revenue:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

Federal Spending:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

So, of the fed spending all of 20% is actually free to cut, the rest is all mandated or already spent for the next 5-10 years and pretty much the only thing to trim, is the rate of growth. Or pony up some spine and cut tomorrow, like every common Jack and Jill in the world. Will never happen. It is reality though.

Likewise, medicare, social absurdity, will be paying out bucketloads of money to retirees that essentially paid far less in than they are getting back out. Baby Boomers and those who came before. Medicare is horrifically over balanced way beyond absurd in regards to revenue verses expenditures.

Sorry, Grandma, you can't keep stealing from your grandchildren. Sorry, there is no magical fountain of youth and no matter how much money you steal from your grand children and childrens' pocket books to pay for your retirement homes, and open heart transplants, you will still die. We all will. Its not a feel good, nice subject, but die with dignity will ya? Quit stealing from your children to maybe, extend your life another 3-6 months. Oh, but its a government program so the old folks lie to themselves that they aren't hurting their children and grandchildren. Guess its A-OK to steal from someone elses' children and grandchildren.

Quit being selfish.

Would such a short speech work in congress? Hell no.

It would be realistic though.

Realistic would be a doubling of the Medicare/Social security payroll taxes to break even. Can you see that being passed? HAHAHA. Instead you can guarantee they will bury their heads in the sand till the the problem is too big and cannot be dealt with unless is beyond draconian.

PS. Everyone should pay taxes, no matter how poor, just to remind everyone that they are a responsible citizen. Be less grab grab grab, me me me from those who don't pay anything currently. To balance this perceived cut the restriction for "help" when one makes a certain amount of money and rather cap said programs with a time limit of how long one can be on them. #months/year over a 5 year period. It is the initial few months one needs help no matter how good/bad a job they have or don't have or just lost. Likewise they need a Very BLATANT cut off date to get off the government teat, as a kick in the lazy pants. We all have lazy pants, but most of us have a thing called discipline overcoming our institutional laziness.