which tax is fairest?

[Nightingale 0]

Honestly, I think inheritance tax is the most unfair. Not only has that money already been taxed (when it was earned), but an inheritance tax interferes with what is basically a gift, generally between a parent and child. If someone has worked their whole life to put away money so that their family is taken care of once they're gone, which is a very responsible thing to do, it seems terribly unfair for the government to step in and say "NO! MINE!"

What seems the most fair to me is a sales tax on items that are not food or medicine, and a flat income tax on all income over a certain percentage, with the only tax deductions being for donations to non-profit organizations.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Honestly, I think inheritance tax is the most unfair. Not only has that money already been taxed (when it was earned), but an inheritance tax interferes with what is basically a gift, generally between a parent and child. If someone has worked their whole life to put away money so that their family is taken care of once they're gone, which is a very responsible thing to do, it seems terribly unfair for the government to step in and say "NO! MINE!"

What seems the most fair to me is a sales tax on items that are not food or medicine, and a flat income tax on all income over a certain percentage, with the only tax deductions being for donations to non-profit organizations.

absolutely

except

1 - even below some percentage there should be a small tax so all citizens understand they have ownership in the government - I'd be in favor of a token low percentage up to a certain amount, then a step to a flat tax above that amount

2 - why deduct for any kind of donation - that's a private transaction so the gov shouldn't get involved in that either

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Honestly, I think inheritance tax is the most unfair. Not only has that money already been taxed (when it was earned), but an inheritance tax interferes with what is basically a gift, generally between a parent and child. If someone has worked their whole life to put away money so that their family is taken care of once they're gone, which is a very responsible thing to do, it seems terribly unfair for the government to step in and say "NO! MINE!"

What seems the most fair to me is a sales tax on items that are not food or medicine, and a flat income tax on all income over a certain percentage, with the only tax deductions being for donations to non-profit organizations.

Taxing dead people is the best. They don't need and can't use the money where they are. If it's a gift, then let's call it a gift tax, that way it's much more pallatable.

[Nightingale 0]

Why deduct for donation to charity?

To encourage donations to charities, which can do things like providing for the homeless far more efficiently than the government can. I think it's practical to keep some kind of compensation system in place to encourage this.

And yes, you are right, everyone should pay at least a little something.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why deduct for donation to charity?

To encourage donations to charities, which can do things like providing for the homeless far more efficiently than the government can. I think it's practical to keep some kind of compensation system in place to encourage this.

And yes, you are right, everyone should pay at least a little something.

I understand the idea of government meddling in social behavior. I just disagree with it.

I don't see why the government should be 'encouraging' social behavior. We can do that ourselves.

No deductions, no penalties - just stay neutral and don't touch it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,009]

>I don't see why the government should be 'encouraging' social behavior.

Because by having any tax at all, you 'encourage' some forms of behavior. (For example, if all we had was property tax, people would rent far more often.) So the government has an obligation to at least not encourage bad behavior, since that negatively impacts the US as a whole. And given a choice between encouraging bad behavior and encouraging good behavior, I'd tend to side with "good."

However, if your point is that the impact should be designed to be as neutral as possible, that's a fair argument.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Why deduct for donation to charity?

To encourage donations to charities, which can do things like providing for the homeless far more efficiently than the government can. I think it's practical to keep some kind of compensation system in place to encourage this.

And yes, you are right, everyone should pay at least a little something.

I understand the idea of government meddling in social behavior. I just disagree with it.

I don't see why the government should be 'encouraging' social behavior. We can do that ourselves.

No deductions, no penalties - just stay neutral and don't touch it.

In most circumstances I agree with you. Government social engineering is bad.

However, in this case, private charities are dealing with (and probably would become more involved with) problems that the government is currently addressing. The money funneled that way would be actively lifting a burden from the government, as problems such as homelessness and other issues addressed by charities are generally issues that must be addressed somehow, or they have a drastic effect on society. We want people feeding the homeless so they aren't starving. We want people providing low cost health care to people who can't afford it. And we want charities doing these things so the government doesn't have to, because a government solution is going to be more expensive and less effective.

A tax deduction is a way to ensure that money continues to flow to charitable organizations and the government gets by on less money because it is less involved in social programs that are better addressed by charities in the first place.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

What seems the most fair to me is … a flat income tax on all income over a certain percentage, ….

So, if, for example, that "certain percentage" was 15%, then someone making $20,000 annually would have a $3000 standard deduction, and someone making $200,000 annually would have a $30,000 standard deduction.

I don't see how that is fair at all. It seems to heavily biased against the poor.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Nightingale 0]

Sorry, percentage was the wrong word there.

A flat tax percentage over a certain amount (poverty line), so it would actually be biased against those making more money, because the poor would pay virtually nothing (see above discussion).

Say the tax is 10% for ease of numbers.

So, if I make $30,000, and that's the poverty line, I pay nothing or a token amount.

If I make $50,000, I pay $5000 in tax.

If I make $100,000, I pay $10,000 in tax.

Then, I pay tax on anything else I buy that is not food or medications. The rich tend to buy more expensive things, so they would pay more tax. The poor tend to buy cheaper things, and would therefore pay less tax.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Sorry, percentage was the wrong word there.

A flat tax percentage over a certain amount (poverty line), so it would actually be biased against those making more money, because the poor would pay virtually nothing (see above discussion).

Thanks for the clarification.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[JohnDeere 0]

A question for you and Dreamworld. Do you have a will? If so in your will did you make sure the Govt. get's all of your money and possesions when you die?

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[billvon 3,009]

>A flat tax percentage over a certain amount (poverty line), so it would
>actually be biased against those making more money, because the poor would
>pay virtually nothing (see above discussion).

Well, that would be bad, since you'd have a strong incentive to not make more than the poverty line. But if you mean "flat tax on every dollar someone makes that takes them _over_ the poverty line" then that could work pretty well.

So let's use your example of 10% with a $30,000 poverty line:

Income of $30,000 - zero tax.
Income of $30,100 - 10% of (31000-30000) = $10 tax
Income of $40,000 - 10% of (40K-10K) = $1000 tax
Income of $50,000 - $2000 tax
Income of $100,000 - $7000 tax

(Or pick whatever percentage/poverty line you like.)

[Nightingale 0]

Thank you, Bill, for explaining what I'm actually trying to say. I should know better than to post when I'm on migraine meds.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why deduct for donation to charity?

To encourage donations to charities, which can do things like providing for the homeless far more efficiently than the government can. I think it's practical to keep some kind of compensation system in place to encourage this.

Why? A significant portion of this is people contributing to their church, so it provides them with a service each week. This exists only because we have a history of being church goers, so I'm now subsidizing pedophiles, missionaries, gaudy buildings (Crystal Cathedral, anyone?) and those lobbying against equal rights. Only a tiny portion of that money is providing for the homeless.

[Nightingale 0]

The deduction for donations to a non-profit would have to be narrowed to those that actually perform certain functions that the government would otherwise have to provide, such as feeding/caring for the poor, providing medical care, promoting medical research, etc. Donating to a church's soup kitchen would be deductible, but donating to their fund to build a new church wouldn't be, because Congress shouldn't be passing laws respecting establishment of religion.

Hope I'm making sense... like I said above, I'm on painkillers.

[dreamdancer 0]

the most regressive tax also seems to be the most popular - strange. which tax will obama plump for? he'll have to decide soon...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Honestly, I think inheritance tax is the most unfair. Not only has that money already been taxed (when it was earned), but an inheritance tax interferes with what is basically a gift, generally between a parent and child. If someone has worked their whole life to put away money so that their family is taken care of once they're gone, which is a very responsible thing to do, it seems terribly unfair for the government to step in and say "NO! MINE!"

What seems the most fair to me is a sales tax on items that are not food or medicine, and a flat income tax on all income over a certain percentage, with the only tax deductions being for donations to non-profit organizations.

The inheritance tax is simply a capital gains tax on VERY large estates. The assets and investments are changing ownership, so capital gains kicks in. It does NOT apply to 99.5 % of the population. For that 0.5%, a decent tax attorney that specializes in estate planning can minimize or eliminate the tax anyway.

This is an example of how the wealthiest people in the country sell the poor folks really bad ideas that are NOT in their best interests. The idea that the "death tax" is bad and should be abolished is a new pitch that has come out of the disaster of ShrubCo. None of the poor folks will ever have anything to do with an estate tax, but they will be all upset about something that has NO EFFECT on their lives, other then to lessen their tax burden slightly.

The "sheeple" effect in all its glory. The dumb asses that get whipped into a frenzy over estate taxes are stooges for the ultra-wealthy. They are quite proud to be that way. Very odd. These are the same people who stand to benefit most from the modest health care reforms that passed, but are against it because they're told to be by Faux news, Lush, Beckerhead, etc. They don't understand what the bill actually does, but they are opposed anyway.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

the most regressive tax also seems to be the most popular - strange. which tax will obama plump for? he'll have to decide soon...

how is a sales tax regressive? I envision a national sales tax implemented much like TX sales tax is. Non junk food isn't taxed, theres a weekend before shool starts every year where clothes and school/office supply type things aren't taxed. With that kind of a system, what's so regressive about a sales tax?

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The inheritance tax is simply a capital gains tax on VERY large estates. The assets and investments are changing ownership, so capital gains kicks in. It does NOT apply to 99.5 % of the population. For that 0.5%, a decent tax attorney that specializes in estate planning can minimize or eliminate the tax anyway.

Bullcrap - most farms could qualify without much trouble.

Quote

This is an example of how the wealthiest people in the country sell the poor folks really bad ideas that are NOT in their best interests.

Yeah, but we still have hope that you and the other 'useful idiots' will wake up.

Quote

The "sheeple" effect in all its glory. The dumb asses that get whipped into a frenzy over estate taxes are stooges for the ultra-wealthy. They are quite proud to be that way. Very odd. These are the same people who stand to benefit most from the modest health care reforms that passed, but are against it because they're told to be by Faux news, Lush, Beckerhead, etc. They don't understand what the bill actually does, but they are opposed anyway.

And you and yours are stooges for the opposite side. You're for it because Obama / Olbermann / Maddow told you that it was a good thing and that Bush lied about it, so you bought into it hook line and sinker.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[champu 1]

Quote

how is a sales tax regressive?

When people use "progressive" and "regressive" to describe taxes it's usually implied that they're indexing total tax paid back to the person's income. You're right that a true regressive sales tax would be absurd. Imagine paying 50% sales tax on items $5 and less rolling off to 5% sales tax as the value of the item increased to $10,000. Now THAT would have poor people rightfully pissed off.

A flat sales tax is regressive under the assumption that poor people live paycheck to paycheck spending every dime they make, which makes their effective tax rate as a percentage of their income equal to the flat sales tax rate. People who are not poor generally have some level of savings/investments which they can use to earn additional money none of which sales tax touches. This reduces the effective tax rate as a percentage of your income the more you make.

People who aren't "super rich" but complain about estate taxes are being called stooges here, but I don't know if that's necessarily fair. People focusing on a carrot out in the distance is probably a good thing. I think it's more worrisome when poor people don't empathize with a hard-working middle class person that gets screwed over by policies.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

how is a sales tax regressive?

When people use "progressive" and "regressive" to describe taxes it's usually implied that they're indexing total tax paid back to the person's income. You're right that a true regressive sales tax would be absurd. Imagine paying 50% sales tax on items $5 and less rolling off to 5% sales tax as the value of the item increased to $10,000. Now THAT would have poor people rightfully pissed off.

A flat sales tax is regressive under the assumption that poor people live paycheck to paycheck spending every dime they make, which makes their effective tax rate as a percentage of their income equal to the flat sales tax rate. People who are not poor generally have some level of savings/investments which they can use to earn additional money none of which sales tax touches. This reduces the effective tax rate as a percentage of your income the more you make.

People who aren't "super rich" but complain about estate taxes are being called stooges here, but I don't know if that's necessarily fair. People focusing on a carrot out in the distance is probably a good thing. I think it's more worrisome when poor people don't empathize with a hard-working middle class person that gets screwed over by policies.

a flat sales tax on everything sure. but did you read the rest of my post? If like tx sales tax, food isnt taxed, or like the fairtax.org system, there was a monthly tax prebate, then the month to month folks (I live month to month) wouldnt be affected by this tax as much since they wouldnt be buying non necessity items.

--
Rob

[billvon 3,009]

>the most regressive tax also seems to be the most popular

A 'flat tax' (i.e. flat percentage) with a poverty line offset is actually pretty progressive. This is a tax of the type "pay 30 cents for every dollar you make over $26,000." It is miles more progressive than the most basic flat tax - charge everyone in the US $42,000 a year.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Honestly, I think inheritance tax is the most unfair. Not only has that money already been taxed (when it was earned), but an inheritance tax interferes with what is basically a gift, generally between a parent and child. If someone has worked their whole life to put away money so that their family is taken care of once they're gone, which is a very responsible thing to do, it seems terribly unfair for the government to step in and say "NO! MINE!"

What seems the most fair to me is a sales tax on items that are not food or medicine, and a flat income tax on all income over a certain percentage, with the only tax deductions being for donations to non-profit organizations.

The inheritance tax is simply a capital gains tax on VERY large estates. The assets and investments are changing ownership, so capital gains kicks in. It does NOT apply to 99.5 % of the population. For that 0.5%, a decent tax attorney that specializes in estate planning can minimize or eliminate the tax anyway.

No.

1. Where capital gains apply to appreciation above the cost basis, the inheritance tax applies to _everything_ and not just capital gains and it's 55% not 20% (assuming the Bush reduction sunsets).

2. The inheritance tax starts applying to MODERATE estates of the sort middle class couples must save to maintain their life style. With Social Security replacement rates of just 30% (assuming the government does not cut benefits) of higher earning individuals up to the wage cap people need 18X their annual income saved to avoid running out of money before they die. That's $1.8M for some one earning $100K a year like garbage men in expensive places. With an exemption (technically a credit) of just $1M the garbage man's estate would be taxed $550,000 (assuming the Bush reduction sunsets). Given a history of limited indexing for inflation, we can expect this to go down market.

Quote

This is an example of how the wealthiest people in the country sell the poor folks really bad ideas that are NOT in their best interests. The idea that the "death tax" is bad and should be abolished is a new pitch that has come out of the disaster of ShrubCo. None of the poor folks will ever have anything to do with an estate tax, but they will be all upset about something that has NO EFFECT on their lives, other then to lessen their tax burden slightly.

Poor people don't pay taxes. It's the middle class people who want their children to retire that need to worry.

[champu 1]

Quote

a flat sales tax on everything sure. but did you read the rest of my post? If like tx sales tax, food isnt taxed, or like the fairtax.org system, there was a monthly tax prebate, then the month to month folks (I live month to month) wouldnt be affected by this tax as much since they wouldnt be buying non necessity items.

I was just explaining that sales tax is considered regressive because people tend to frame things in terms of an income tax, and people don't usually talk about sales tax in terms of a prebate system.

Which, by the way, would be a lot simpler but still runs into some issues regarding cost of living variation by location and changes over time regarding what people consider to be "necessities".

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

The inheritance tax is simply a capital gains tax on VERY large estates. The assets and investments are changing ownership, so capital gains kicks in. It does NOT apply to 99.5 % of the population. For that 0.5%, a decent tax attorney that specializes in estate planning can minimize or eliminate the tax anyway.

Bullcrap - most farms could qualify without much trouble.

Quote

This is an example of how the wealthiest people in the country sell the poor folks really bad ideas that are NOT in their best interests.

Yeah, but we still have hope that you and the other 'useful idiots' will wake up.

Quote

The "sheeple" effect in all its glory. The dumb asses that get whipped into a frenzy over estate taxes are stooges for the ultra-wealthy. They are quite proud to be that way. Very odd. These are the same people who stand to benefit most from the modest health care reforms that passed, but are against it because they're told to be by Faux news, Lush, Beckerhead, etc. They don't understand what the bill actually does, but they are opposed anyway.

And you and yours are stooges for the opposite side. You're for it because Obama / Olbermann / Maddow told you that it was a good thing and that Bush lied about it, so you bought into it hook line and sinker.

Gullibility is nothing to be proud of, unless, of course, you are a RWC.
Then is is the norm and those that have the brains enough to question things are thought poorly of.

If the RWCs weren't supporting policies that hurt me and mine, I wouldn't be so pissed off.
The fact that RWCs support policies that benefit only the top 0.5 percent of the population is what pisses me off. You dickheads don't get that you are being played like a piano by the wealthy folks who own the mass media. You are in favor of things that are BAD for the USA and the 99.5 percent of us regular folks.

Try BBC news as a place for international and political news. You might find that Faux pales in comparison, especially if you FACT CHECK what Faux presents as "news".