[angeldimmon]

Cut down on our overseas military commitments. Most of them are not necessary. I see our Army being minimal, our Air Force being reduced, and our Navy and Marines being roughly at current levels.

Simplify the personal income tax (I don't know enough about corporate taxes to know details there). Remove a lot of the deductions/etc that exist now. In fact, maybe remove them all?

Introduce the following scheme. These are for total income from all income sources.
0% tax on those that make under the federal average income (40k roughly).
30% tax on the next 100k. (40k-140k)
35% tax on everything above that. (140k+)

Increase federal subsidies to education at all levels. Introduce free health care for all under the age of 18.
Increase the retirement age to 70?

Correct the corporate income measures to make sure we get income from them. I would still let charities be not taxed though (just donations/etc wouldn't be tax deductible).

JM

[wantedLOX]

Yeah, the large tax on individual inheritances is a good idea. That will make it so that most will donate to charities/etc when they die rather then to their kids.

I might make it a tax on inheritances (total, not per individual) over $1000k though. One million is still not a lot, for the very wealthy.

JM

[denwerdinoss]

No more family farms or family businesses with the death tax you propose.

Besides smart people would get around it. Put it in foreign bank accounts - gift amounts away before death etc etc.

[POMAH_K]

Originally posted by Darius871


Well, that raises a serious problem: when faced with the choice of giving their entire net worth to big bad Uncle Sam or charities, the vast majority of the super rich (probably more than even 90%) would just give it away to charity, whether for genuine altruism, mere priority, or sheer spite. The result would be almost no significant change in revenue, so there would need to be strong measures against this. For instance, there's already a so-called "gift tax" designed to curtail deliberate evasion of the estate tax prior to death, so it could be expanded to charitable donations above a certain percentage or dollar threshold. As much as I'd hate to take one penny from charities and put it in government coffers, it would be necessary to make an inheritance tax accomplish anything. It sounds heartless at first, but let's keep in mind that that money never would have gone to the charity but for the tax in the first place.



Hey, you hear that? It's the world's smallest violin playing for anyone who wouldn't jump for joy at getting $200K without having to lift a single goddamn finger for it. Cry me a river. I would sooner cash out my accounts and squirrel the money away.

Over a period of decades if necessary.

[eladiopsislab]

I consider giving money to charities to be as good as giving it in taxes. So I have nor problem if they want to give money away instead of give it to the government upon death.

JM

[goctorsurger]

It always amazes me how easy it is for people to think the government has a right to a person's money (especially on his death).

Like I said before this would totally eliminate family farms and business. So that raises the next point. It always amazes me how easy it is for people to think the government can take $1mm and do better for society than a farmer or small businesman.

If you think forcing every family business to liquidate to pay the government upon death of the owner instead of passing the business along to a son, daughter or spouse, I guess you don't mind forcing all the people that work for the business to be unemployed. I guess you think the one-time cashout from the forced sale is better than the ongoing stream of taxes all the employess and the business owner would pay, not too mention all the expenditures avoided by the government from unemployment.

[accotMask17]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
It always amazes me how easy it is for people to think the government has a right to a person's money Funny, I seem to recall it being the Constitution that openly recognized that right. How is it that so many people make the argument about whether there's an underlying right to tax, when really you're only preferring some types of taxes over others (income/tariff/capital gains/corporate/etc. vs. inheritance)? Doesn't that seem a little inconsistent to you?

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Like I said before this would totally eliminate family farms and business. So that raises the next point. It always amazes me how easy it is for people to think the government can take $1mm and do better for society than a farmer or small businesman.

If you think forcing every family business to liquidate to pay the government upon death of the owner instead of passing the business along to a son, daughter or spouse, I guess you don't mind forcing all the people that work for the business to be unemployed. I guess you think the one-time cashout from the forced sale is better than the ongoing stream of taxes all the employess and the business owner would pay, not too mention all the expenditures avoided by the government from unemployment. See my post above regarding small business exemption. I always have to laugh that whenever somebody whispers estate tax, the first thing people jump on is small businesses.

Suppose hypothetically that the tax is strictly limited to residential or recreational realty, chattels, and liquid assets, with an explicit exemption of anything reaching any reasonable definition of "small business," whether corporate or non-corporate. What would be your argument then?

[peakyesno]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I consider giving money to charities to be as good as giving it in taxes. So I have nor problem if they want to give money away instead of give it to the government upon death.

JM I don't think you understand the econmivs of it, especially with a family farm. Let's say the farm islocated about 50 miles out side of the city. The land becomes valued the same as like property in the area. 50 acres and you are talking at least 2.5 million. Probably another $1 million in equipment and buildings. And lets say $500K in livestock. But no cash.

The son want to run the farm. By your formula the son would have to come up with $2,610,000 cash for a family business that is asset rich but probably only generates enough profit to pay the bills. That is one of the reasons precisely why family farms are dying out.

Another is the property taxes get reassessed when ownership changes. So if that farm was about in the 40's by a WWII vet the land probaly went for around $500-$1000/acre.

So on top of having to come up with $2,610,000 cash under your scenario, his property taxes would also go 50 to 100 times what he pays now. So lets the property tax rate is 4%. That means his taxes would go up in one year around $100,000. Which could be more than he earns Why did it go up? Not because he uses any more services from the local government. On the contrary, if he sells to pay the taxes a developer will put in new houses which means roads, sewage, police, schools etc.

[QxmFwtlam]

When have I or anyone else discussed property taxes as part of the federal tax?

The only personal tax I am applying to living people is the income tax.

JM

[Opening-auto]

Oh man. I guess it has changed a bit in 3 years. BTW the total budget is $2.9 trillion and we are currently running a $410 billion deficit per year.



Where do we find the $410 billion? What do we cut or what taxes do we raise?

[Psymoussy]

So far most are suggesting raising taxes for the rich and cutting down a bit on the military.

JM

[kSmica]

I find the groupings rather arbitrary. Isn't "global war on terror" just a part of National Defense, Homeland Security and Department of Justice. That would be like having a category for "war on drugs' or "war on poverty" which are just programs/concepts that other departments spend their budgets on.

What exactly are "Other On-Line" and "Other Off-Line" expenditures. Is that nother way of saying earmarks or pork. Also what exactly is other mandatory spending.

But back to the question it looks like about 14% has to be cut.

It would be nice to see a sources of revenue graph as well. For example Social Security uses 21% - how much does it collect?

[Dr. Shon Thomson]

Originally posted by Elok
(there are too damned many similar shades on that pie) The list goes down and clockwise on the chart.

[QuidQuoPro]

Can't be done. At least, not in the short run. Not while heading into a major recession.

The best we can hope for is not to increase the rate at which we're borrowing. That means re-instituting paygo.


My best effort at this point:

I'd let the Bush tax cuts expire for those persons making over $200,000/year.

Try to reduce military spending by cutting back in Iraq -- but this effort won't be very effective because a lot of troops are going to have to be redeployed to Afghanistan and a lot of equipment has to be repaired, replaced and/or updated. Plus the VA needs some major money.

[fedelwet]

You know that I owe a lot on student loans (which I really didn't need to) and have a good chance of being in the 35% tax bracket in my list at some point in my life?

Anyways, you can't do math:
39k has 39k to spend.
42k has 40k + .7*2k = 41.4k to spend.

You sure you would decline that raise?

JM

[paratayoma]

Temporary isolationism. Retreat and regroup.

[Phouepou]

Declare Bill Gates guilty of monopolistic practices.
Hang him and seize his property.

[AttableBewNaw]

Originally posted by Victor Galis I'd impose:

-Carbon tax $10/gallon!

[CHEAPSOFTOEMONLINE]

1. Index the retirement age and medicare to life expectancy

2. Amply fund hospice

3. Cap spending increases to 2 percent less than the nominal economic growth rate

[jstizzle]

Legalize drugs and tax them. (Part of the VAT/luxury tax)

Empty the prisons of all non-violent criminals. Fines for non-violent crimes. Work programs for those who can't pay.

Work programs for those on welfare.

Eliminate capital gains tax, income tax, and use a VAT/luxury tax instead, with food, housing (to a certain level, say median house price/rent for your local), and education exempt. Should be roughly revenue neutral (+drug/luxury tax) if set right. I don't care how much/little you make, if you're buying spinning wheels for your ride (among a great many other things) you should be paying maximum tax on that money.