Monday, January 27, 2014

It's the Revenue to the Federal Government, Stupid - The Solution

TAX SIMPLIFICATION/REFORM. My suggestion would be to have 3 mildly graduating rates; 15% on the first $50,000, 20% on $50,000 to $500,000, and 25% on everything over $500,000, treat all forms of income equally (no more special treatment for capital gains), and grant ZERO DEDUCTIONS. This way an individual could fill out his or her postcard sized tax form in about 10 minutes and do it by him or herself. I mean, can you even begin imagine the increases in efficiency that could eventuate from this, the lessening of corruption, etc.?.........................................................................P.S. And, yes, I would do the exact same thing to the corporate rate as well; reduce it to 15-20% and eliminate all the damn deductions. Make X, pay Y, boom, done.

17 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

Is it proper to allow legitimate costs of doing business as a deduction?

BB-Idaho said...

It seems the loophole system has created an entire field of tax lawyers; your suggestion seems much more fair.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I was thinking no deductions at all, guys. You make x, you pay y, and keep the politics and engineering out of it.

Jerry Critter said...

Good question, RN. But then, if businesses have legitimate deductions, don't hard working Americans also have legitimate deductions?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Good point, Jerry. What's good for one is good for all.

dmarks said...

Did I miss something..who here demanded business deductions?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Certainly not I.

dmarks said...

Anyway, not seeing BB or Jerry... or anyone objecting, am I?

So, is it true that we have some sort of quick consensus on this idea?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I think that we could get Jerry and BB on board with the general idea of reducing rates in exchange for getting rid of loopholes. What the precise rates would be would probably take a more protracted negotiation.

dmarks said...

Glad they are at the table. And it takes a real clown to get blocked from this blog.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I think that BB nailed it; the fact that we are spending literally hundreds of billions of dollars just so that we can comply with this sucker when we could be making it so much easier for folks.......Oh, and the one thing that I would keep would be the Earned Income Tax Credit (though I'd probably change it from 1 lump sum to 12 monthly payments to help the folks budget better), yet another thing that would possibly entice these fellows to the table.

dmarks said...

Will: I am strongly in favor of a good EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit).

In fact, it would be a great idea to abolish the minimum wage and replace it with this. What do you think, Will?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Absolutely. That way we can take care of the truly needy and not distort the market in a manner that freezes those with the highest skills deficits out of the job force.

Jerry Critter said...

All the EITC does is shift the cost of labor from business where is belongs to the government where it does not belong. I find it hard to believe that both of you are in favor of increasing the cost and power of government.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It's not for us to determine the cost of labor to a business, Jerry, especially a small business that is struggling to survive. If we want to increase the purchasing power of a worker the we have to figure out a way to make him or her more marketable rather than holding a gun to the head of entrepreneurs.......And the EITC is actually the brainchild of Milton Friedman (Friedman referred to it as the negative income tax).

dmarks said...

Jerry: I am very happy to provide taxes so the government can pay welfare to this who need it.

I am not happy at all to pay higher prices (or see diminished service) because the government is instead forcing businesses to pay welfare to those who don't need it.

I also think it is erroneous for you to call this a "cost of labor" situation, as it all involves charity payments that arent actually connected to the value of the work.

dmarks said...

And no Jerry, the cost should not be on businesses to pay people money that they never earned. Not at all.