How would you build the perfect tax system and how much would the state do?

Today the median wage is $35K and 'someone can live on this'.

The USA has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world and you think it's not high enough? You obviously don't realize the completion that exists within industry especially with off-shore business.

You prove your diatribe when you make comments like 'do not really care to be among them with their narcissism and self importance' stereotyping the wealthy as if you know all 25 million of them.

For the sake of your jealousy and petty complaints about the wealthy, wouldn't it be great if 'they' cancelled all of their charitable giving...I think it's time they truly showed their selfishness and pulled the plug on charitable giving.

Pure 100% jealousy...let me know when you solve some real problems with this diatribe...

 

Narcissists escalate their diatribes into empty threats when people continue to disagree with them.

Btw, wouldn't it be even greater if the wealthy made the choice to deploy their excess wealth into the economy in a manner that made not just charitable giving, but government social welfare programs completely unnecessary?

 

Sociopaths don't see the world like that.

- - - Updated - - -

can you document all these claims?

 

It's not my job to document common information...you can search anything you wish on the Internet...

 

Actually the median income is closer to $50,000 according to the people who keep track of those sorts of statistics. It was $35,000 in the 1990s.
While it is certainly possible for a single person to live in reasonable comfort on $50,000 gross income, which works out to about $35,000 net income after taxes etc for a single person. That this is the median income tells us that half the households in the US receive less than that. It is estimated that about 60% of children and 70% of senior citizens in the US live in households that receive less than half the median income.

So, you are proposing that these families with children and senior citizens struggling to get by on their meagre incomes should be required to go without food or heat to pay an income tax in order to reduce the supposedly horrific burden of taxes that the wealthy bear?
That is something only an anti-social empathy deficient psychopath would even consider.
I am seriously considering you for nomination to be included in that pantheon.

 

Actually you don't know the median income...for an individual it is about $32K and for a household it is about $50K and all of my discussion has been about individuals.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Personal_income.png

I propose all Americans pay for the government which they demand...unless a person is mentally and physically incapable every American should be paying their share...no such thing as a free ride.

Go without food and heat...gotta go to the dark side don't you...how about people living within their means? How about no alcohol, no drugs, no gambling, no unnecessary purchases ever!

People need to get something through their heads...wages ARE NOT going to be increased ever more than a few percent...not going to happen! Therefore, for all the whiners, they must look elsewhere to solve their problems...

 

It was attitudes like that which created both socialism and communism and led directly to the revolution in France, Russia, China and all the colonies in Africa, Asia and the Americas. Looking elsewhere for solutions to their problems was exactly what these people did. That the wealthy elite continue to this day in their failure to recognize that they must share some of the growing wealth for their own good would be absurdly humorous if it was not so appallingly deadly.

As many nations have recently discovered, ultimate power is held by consent of the people and when the people refuse their consent to be governed there is nothing that any government or wealthy elite can do about it. I should point out that all these recent collapses of power were precipitated by a deterioration in the economic circumstance of the people.

So, it appears that you would like to engage the US in an experiment to discover the exact point where economic circumstances generate the same effect. Extending the income tax to the poor would certainly accelerate that. The tipping point is somewhere along the curve of destruction of the middle class, which has been under way for a few decades now.

Or maybe you naively believe that the people of the US are willing to allow their economic circumstance to deteriorate indefinitely while the wealth of the nation continues to grow and become ever more concentrated. Perhaps you believe that those who realize this, complain and seek remedy through changes in how wealth is distributed can be controlled through force and propaganda alone.

Unfortunately, there is a point where no amount of force and no amount of propaganda can convince people to continue in their support for a system that is strangling them economically. The USSR is a prime example of that and the US could never employ the same level of force and propaganda to suppress dissenters as the USSR.

In fact, the situation in the US, where the people are the most heavily armed on the planet and challenges to unreasonable exercises of authority are considered an inalienable right, pretty much guarantees that popular insurrection will become ever more popular as people's economic circumstances deteriorate. The US was far closer to replacing its economic system in the 1930s than many people realize. Only massive deficit spending on social welfare by Roosevelt fended off the socialists from taking control of the government. The USSR was unaffected by the stock market crash and depression, which made socialism appealing for those suffering in the US and Europe from the unpredictably devastating ups and downs of capitalism.

 

I think that the rich should all just leave the US, taking all their stuff and abilities with them, selling their land and bizes, etc, and let these incompetent jerks SEE what happens then. Zimbabwe, that's what will happen, what has always happened.

 

Tax the poor the most being they use more of the system then the rich. Pay for what you use.

 

I think land value taxation is the best, from an economic perspective. Give each person a certain deductible exemption so that grandma will not be taxed out of her home.

There are, however, Libertarians who believe direct taxation can potentially be dangerous, and that the government should stay with taxation on economic transactions for individual things.

 

Let me get this right,

People should have the wealth removed upon death to fund bigger govt because politicians are corrupt?

I just cant fathom the leftist mindset. Get rid of life long politicians and fixing the political system should be the goal. Its like some religious nutter saying my god becomes a bad god if theres too many people so we need to kill some non believers. No its your god - in this case the state - thats the problem, NOT people freely trading amongst themselves.

The other thing is providing for future generations is a massive motivator for most people which drives innovation which creates jobs. Its amazing that making sure your children arent a burden on other people is a bad thing. Mind boggling stuff.

 

Don't know that a "perfect" tax system exists.

But as someone who worked in the tax industry for 20 years, I know it a little better than most.

The first thing to do is to end all tax shelters and call in all capital in overseas accounts. Once the nation's debt is paid off we can use the overages to finance the rebuilding of the infrastructure. Then we can begin to create tax reform such as ending the income tax on individual wages as doing so will mean the government will no longer have the means to finance the military industrial complex and we can then have peace.

 

It's not an attitude so don't waste your time trying to place a charge on my comments. Fact is common wages ARE NOT going to increase more than a few percent per year. You seem to think the private economy will tolerate your social meddling but I suggest your social ideology will backfire if you were to ever get your way. Current hourly wages might range from $7.25/hour to $60/hour and you think you can arbitrarily change this to any number you desire...like $15/hour to $100/hour...you can't do this! Therefore, once again, for all the whiners who claim they don't earn enough wages, they MUST seek other options outside of social welfare.

If someone educates themselves, learns valuable skills, works their ass off in a long career, and along the way accumulates wealth....AND another person does exactly the opposite...and then you force the prior person to share their wealth with the latter person, going forward...what do you suppose the motivation will be for the achievers to continue achieving when their wealth will be taken from them? When people fail in the economy, they need to deal personally with their failures, not go after others wealth and successes.

If the lower and middle classes can afford alcohol, tobacco, drugs, gambling, lottery tickets, extravagant purchases, sporting events, etc. to the tune of trillion$ per year...then duh...they can afford to pay some income taxes...this cannot be disputed.

Your problem, and others, is you believe everyone else owes you something...when in fact, whatever it is you achieve must be achieved through your own efforts...not those efforts of others. If someone does not like their situation, then that person needs to take personal steps to achieve more of whatever it is they desire...not to beg and take from others. If this is what the USA is becoming...then the USA will slowly become a 3rd world nation as all the achievers and wealth seeks other places outside of the USA...this is already happening so keep pushing...

 

Wrong again. I actually work for a living in my own employ and do not believe that anyone owes me anything just like I do not owe anyone, anything. I pay my taxes willingly and do not begrudge them because I see that they provide valuable services to me and to my community, services that I would like to see improved and expanded even though I will not avail myself of or benefit directly from most of them. This is because, unlike you, I see that government spending that benefits others also benefits me, my business, my community and the nation. Unlike you, I would prefer to live in a nation with no homeless beggars on the streets and no poverty.

Wages are very arbitrary in today's economy, with the minimum wage being the most arbitrary. The entire wage curve set by the level of government subsidies and tax breaks to workers and businesses at all levels of the economy, from the minimum wage worker to the highest paid CEO. It is naive to an extreme to even think that low end wages in the US are determined by the supply and demand for labour. The US is already sinking to third world levels of poverty and income for large parts of the population, not because people are not motivated to improve their situation but because many of the pathways to the opportunities for greater income are foreclosed to them, mostly due to inadequate education in their youth, which they have no control over. Not everyone has the ability to raise themselves up by their bootstraps so to blame failure to do so as some kind of personal failure as a human being is quite cynical. While It is quite common among the privileged to characterize the the failures among them as flawed persons it is a disingenuous leap to apply that characterization to everyone not born to privilege who fails to get ahead.

I believe that people should be given help when in need and most people in need of help also require some assistance to gain the opportunity to better their circumstance and, given that opportunity they will take it. I have seen it happen over and over again. You do not believe it to be even possible, or more likely believe it because it promises to save you a few dollars on your taxes, which it won't because these people will become criminals and be locked up at far greater taxpayer expense than actually educating them adequately in the first place.

That is the difference between you and me.

 

Government spending does not solve 'homeless beggars on the streets and no poverty'??

Makes no difference what 'you' do...these discussions must include the collective we.

Wages have nothing to do with 'government subsidies'?

People who did not acquire education in their youth can do so anytime they wish until the day they die.

Millions of kids achieve great success without having 'privilege'...if they can do it so can the rest of them.

Look around you...nothing has changed...government and spending have not helped...people are either motivated or they are not...

 

so the rich just give their money to their kids BEFORE they die, so what diff will result, hmm? Who says that we NEED ANY tax system, in the first place? How about we just get rid of 90+% of gov't and military and fund the resulting 10% with voluntary payment for services and with lotteries. You have no right to point gov't guns at me and take my money. which is EXACTLY what taxes are. taxes are taken at the point of a gun. Amazing how many people argue that such is not so. well TRY resisting arrest when they come for you about non payment of your taxes. SEE what gets pointed at you (and FIRED at you, if need be!)

either be adequately productive to support yourself, live on charity, or perish in and of your own void.

 

I'd replace the entire tax code with a land value tax. A land value tax is:

1. Simple to administer

2. Impossible to evade

3. Does not distort economic activity as land prices are an economic rent

4. Cannot be passed on to customers or tenants.

5. Encourages development of marginal areas

6. Deters real estate speculation.

All of the privately-held land in the USA is worth about $14.6 trillion. A 5% tax on that would raise over $730 billion. And as economic progress increases, land values will rise, which means more revenue is generated.

Sure, you may have to deal with the cases where land values go up while the owner's income doesn't also go up, but the financial markets will likely solve that quickly. And the elderly living on low incomes can defer the taxes until the land is sold or inherited.

Also, the above poster who said generational accumulation of wealth encourages laziness: i know quite a few people who are extremely wealthy due to inheritances...they have said they want to work, because they are bored and they want to feel like they themselves earned something and are useful.

 

So the millions of people who are retired, on low or fixed incomes, who happen to own property, in CA many of them are worth big bucks, need to start paying 5% of their property value per year? Average price of a home in my county is $600K so you want all of those home owners to fork over $30,000 every year?!

And for all of those who rent or lease...NONE of them will pay any taxes?!

Your idea above is idiocy...

 

Somebody has to own the land, somebody has to hold the title to it.

 

Your idea has no sense of reality...

 

Go research land value tax and get back to me

 

Amen mate! Thankfully, over here we can reduce/eliminate our income tax obligations through negative gearing. It has a lot of negative effects on the housing market, because people are buying property at an inefficient, unsustainable rate - but it's good for me at least.

Put a deposit on a house, rent it out, use that money to cover most of the mortgage repayments, then the difference is reduced off your tax bill. Of course, the average house is like $500,000 here.

 

The problem is ... who would pay about the electronic transactions? The sender or the receiver? Or would it be divided in equal parts?

In any case pay attention that often electronic transactions are circular and multiplied by passages, but it's always the same money to circulate.

Furthermore, being that tax so ridiculous as for percentage incidence, I'm afraid who pays it [receiver / sender] will charge it on the transaction [for example increasing the price of stocks by a nice 0.0025%]. The price cannot be imposed by law, in a free market it's the result of the meeting of demand and offer.

So at the end, the transactions would cost to the private business the total amount of the collected taxes, and since these transactions are simply the repetition of passages of the same money [the real richness produced by a country is its GDP, in really poor approximation, not the total value of the electronic transactions!!!!!!] ... the social cost of this tiny tax would kill the economy !!!!

 

Instead of reading propaganda just think about what you are proposing...

 

The land value tax can be deferred until the sale of the land or when it is inherited. Problem solved.

Taxing labor and capital reduces economic efficiency. Taxing land does not, because land values are an economic rent.