Taxman59
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2014
- Messages
- 645
It isn't all that complicated. I should pay less in taxes. Everyone else should pay more.
It isn't all that complicated. I should pay less in taxes. Everyone else should pay more.
Isn't sales tax a consumption based tax? The more you buy/use, the more you pay...I'd like to see income taxes eliminated, and a new tax system put in place based on consumption. Probably would trim the IRS by 80%.
Isn't sales tax a consumption based tax? The more you buy/use, the more you pay...
I think a consumption based tax along with a flat income tax "sounds" like it could be a bit more fair, but I haven't thought through all the details/ramifications. That too should eliminate most of the IRS and a lot of the tax gaming. As well as tax lawyers, Turbo Tax, tax courts, H&R Block, etc, etc.
IMHO, the problem isn't in-life wealth creation, its inter-generational wealth transfers.
Jeff Bezos went from packing books in his apartment to having enough money to look and act like a James Bond villian. Along the way, he changed the world and had the courage to not sell all his shares when it was "only" worth $2B.
Bill Gates started comfortably wealthy and then changed the planet. Along the way he didn't sell off all of his shares. He's now trying to cure disease in Africa.
Elon Musk...you get the idea.
Amen to them.
But that's not to say all is right in the world:
The relative treatment of earned vs. non-earned income is not right and things like stepped-up cost basis at death are downright silly for the super-wealthy and the rest of us alike.
The problem I would personally address is dynastic, multi-generational wealth.
A modest proposal:
Tax the concentration of inheritance received rather than the size of the estate.
For example, we could decide that any inheritance (all sources) to an individual in excess of $5m would be taxed at 99%. Below $5m is 0%.
If Jeff Bezos decided at his death to distribute his $200B by giving 2m families each $100k...zero taxes. Best lottery every. A lifetime of wealth goes back into society. And Bezos can decide how its distributed. Knock yourself out.
If he decides to give it to his one kid? We will take about $199B of that, thank you for playing. His kid will have scrape by on $1B.
I think this single change would do much to disrupt the creation of a new aristocracy, which is as the root and long term risk of these challenges. (Of course, we can now all argue about wether the cut-off is $1m, $5m, $10m...)
My $0.02.
+1. Agreed. Too bad none of the primary stakeholders have any reason to change - just like campaign finance, the root of the issue along with many others. And the complexity of the current IRS code is outrageous, and unnecessary for fairness.Isn't sales tax a consumption based tax? The more you buy/use, the more you pay...
I think a consumption based tax along with a flat income tax "sounds" like it could be a bit more fair, but I haven't thought through all the details/ramifications. That too should eliminate most of the IRS and a lot of the tax gaming. As well as tax lawyers, Turbo Tax, tax courts, H&R Block, etc, etc.
Kamala Harris and her husband earned more than twice as much as Joe Biden and his wife did last year, according to copies of their income tax returns released on Friday.
Harris and the so-called second gentleman, Doug Emhoff, reported a federal adjusted gross income of about $1.7m in 2021, which was about the same they claimed to have earned the prior year.
Joe Biden and the first lady, Jill Biden, cited an income of nearly $611,000, about $4,000 more than they made in 2020, said their tax documents, which were released by the White House.
The vice-president and her husband also reported paying $523,371 in taxes on their income, a rate of 31.6%. For their part, the Bidens reported being taxed $150,439 on their income, meaning the president’s family’s tax rate was 24.6%. ...
It’s not that easy. That $200B isn’t all cash, or even mostly cash. It is tied up in businesses, stock, bonds, real estate and such. Imagine if all of Jeff Bezos’ shares of Amazon had to be sold off at once to pay a tax bill. Share prices might plummet affecting most 401k, IRA, pension, mutual fund and ETF accounts.
.... If Jeff Bezos decided at his death to distribute his $200B by giving 2m families each $100k...zero taxes. Best lottery every. A lifetime of wealth goes back into society. And Bezos can decide how its distributed. Knock yourself out. ...
My $0.02.
I think the issue is not how much the rich folks pay, but do they use their money and influence to tilt the playing field in their favor. They can do things that the rest of us can't, like buy their own election. Let me give you a clear example of that:
https://www.wired.com/1997/06/paul-allen-ventures-into-seattle-election/
In effect, he bought his own election, and the timetable for the election. IIRC, the opposition had a bit over a month to raise money and make their case.
Was this fair? You can judge for yourself. But, I think it's the cunning use of money, much of which goes goes on under the radar, that is what concerns people.
And this a problem why? Because it makes you jealous ?IMHO, the problem isn't in-life wealth creation, its inter-generational wealth transfers. ...
IMHO, the problem isn't in-life wealth creation, its inter-generational wealth transfers.
Yes sales tax is a consumption tax. I was proposing more sales tax, no income tax.
I like the flat tax option also. Anything to simplify and cut bureaucracy.
And this a problem why? Because it makes you jealous ?
If you don't like that idea, create your own wealth and give it away.
I know a lot of lower income people who don’t pay taxes either. Just because you use the tax laws to your advantage when you have money, is that any different than using the laws to your advantage when you have little …or can control your income. Subsidies anyone?
If by "flat tax" your talking about the single rate 20 or 25% the Dick Armey's and Steve Forbes' have floated over the years that's not why the tax cods are complicated. You can have 50 different highly progressive tax brackets and still have a very simple tax code. What make the tax codes so complicated is the definition of income and deciding what is taxable vs non-taxable vs taxable but at favorable rates etc etc etc.
Steve Forbes used to use the statement "ya make it... ya pay it." Meaning whatever money you made no matter the sources, that was all on the table as taxable (I believe after a single deduction for all that he called "generous" but I believe was only $17,500 for a single and probably double for filing jointly etc)
Now that would simplify the tax codes! But it was immediately revealed to be oppressive for at least 50% of the non-already-in-poverty demographic and, at least on paper, a runaway for the super rich by those "mathing out" his proposal at the time. But we all know they aren't giving up preferred treatment on their un-earned income anyway.
Now, if it were all on the table, no cap gains, no inheritances, no special kinds of income or carve outs, deductions, or the hundreds of other things that complicate the tax codes and then progressive tax brackets, that might fly. Would still require tweaking though, I'm sure.
Not sure what "royalty levels" means but I view this idea as speculation rather than a proven fact.... royalty levels of wealth concentration are a significant ill in society. ...
But even folks free from the responsibility of supporting and raising kids of their own benefit from other people's kids whenever they go to the doc, hire a lawyer, go to a restaurant, have a house built, enjoy the security provided by a standing army, etc., etc. OPK's are pretty important to everyone, whether you have some of your own or not.50% of my property taxes go to schools. Beautiful new and remodeled schools. Helps my property value but I have no children.
Taxes, I want transparent, detailed, and specific accounting of where my taxes go and why. I'll pay them, whatever rules or laws they come up with, OK. But I want to know how, where, and when they use my money and why. Someone tell me why that is so hard. We have to explain and document to the IRS our income, and how we spend (to a degree) because our tax bill depends on it. If we donate, send kids to college, remodel our homes, affects our taxes. The report would be mind-boggling, but I want to make the city, state and fed give me an accounting rather than me having to give them an accounting every single year.
How about that?
But even folks with no kids to raise and support benefit from other people's kids whenever they go to the doc, hire a lawyer, go to a restaurant, have a house built, enjoy security provided by a standing army, etc., etc. OPK's are pretty important to everyone, whether you have some of your own or not.
There is probably more spending data out there than you think. For example, your school board passes a detailed budget and reports on expenditures vs. that budget in detail. Have you asked to roll up your sleeves, dig in and analyze it? Ditto at all levels: fed, state, local. It's analyzing the data and then reaching consensus on what were "good" expenditures and what were not that is the tough part.
As you're working on this, please try to avoid painful, unintended consequences.
50% of my property taxes go to schools. Beautiful new and remodeled schools. Helps my property value but I have no children.