How would you adjust these bracket-schedules?

[phk]

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

Note:  I advocate an elimination of the FICA/Medicare tax completely so I'm advocating a slight increase in the marginal rates for all.

Basically the same ranges as is except for higher marginal rates as follows:

10->12
15->18
25->28
28->32
33->37

Above current 35%:

New 40% bracket: $336,550 to $673,100
New 43% bracket: $673,100 to $1,009,650
New 46% bracket: $1,009,650 to $2,019,300
New 49% bracket: > $2,019,300

AMT:

Eliminate State and Local taxes addback
Include Tax Exempt Interest income over $100,000
Higher exemptoons: $200,000 single, $300,000 HOH, $400,000 MFJ, $150,000 MFS
New rates: 30%: 0-100K AMTI, 35% >100K AMTI

It will now serve it's true purpose with exemption rates adjusted for inflation!

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

And I've only began to scratch the surface.  BTW, I passed the CPA exam!  I could have some fun with the AMT as well.

[opebo]

Same brackets,

0%
7,550-36,550  - 5%
36,550-74,200 - 20%
74,200 - 154,800 - 40%
154,800 - 336,550 - 50%

New Brackets -

336,550-1,000,000 - 70%
1,000,000-5,000,000 - 80%
5,000,000-20,000,000 - 90%
20,000,000+                   99%

Obviously I only used the 'filing singly' graph, as I would do away with differential treatment for marrieds.

[Torie]

Yes, it depends on the deductions issue, and the quantity of same.

Under Opebo's little schedule, some country could get really rich by inviting those whose income opebo wants to take away, to come on down, and become citizens of their fair land, and renounce their US citizenship. John Templeton by the way lives in the Bahamas - as a citizen. He founded a mutual fund family, which bears his name.

[opebo]

Yes, it depends on the deductions issue, and the quantity of same.

Under Opebo's little schedule, some country could get really rich by inviting those whose income opebo wants to take away, to come on down, and become citizens of their fair land, and renounce their US citizenship. John Templeton by the way lives in the Bahamas - as a citizen. He founded a mutual fund family, which bears his name.

But we would simply confiscate all their assets and blow up the Bahamas, Torie.

[Torie]

Yes, it depends on the deductions issue, and the quantity of same.

Under Opebo's little schedule, some country could get really rich by inviting those whose income opebo wants to take away, to come on down, and become citizens of their fair land, and renounce their US citizenship. John Templeton by the way lives in the Bahamas - as a citizen. He founded a mutual fund family, which bears his name.

But we would simply confiscate all their assets and blow up the Bahamas, Torie.

Well then China. The Chinese are very practical folks opebo - unlike - to pick a name at random - you! 

[Verily]

One tax system based on individual income. Eliminate special treatment for marriage.

$0 - $10,000: 5%
$10,000 - $50,000: 15%
$50,000 - $100,000: 25%
$100,000 - $300,000: 35%
$300,000 - $1,000,000: 45%
$1,000,000+: 55%

Plus an annual 1% tax on the value of assets totaling over $10,000,000. Corporate tax is eliminated.

[Torie]

One tax system based on individual income. Eliminate special treatment for marriage.

$0 - $10,000: 5%
$10,000 - $50,000: 15%
$50,000 - $100,000: 25%
$100,000 - $300,000: 35%
$300,000 - $1,000,000: 45%
$1,000,000+: 55%

Plus an annual 1% tax on the value of assets totaling over $10,000,000. Corporate tax is eliminated.

Valuing assets every year would be an administrative nightmare, and involve tons of litigation. So scratch that one. It would be great however for the precious metals and high quality jewelry market, and anything else that can be put into that little lockbox that Gore has stored somewhere, safe from "preying" eyes (I meant to type "prying," but I kind of like this typo, so I am going to leave it!).

It would not be so great for publically traded securities, and stuff whose value can be reported straight to the feds on some little 1099 type form however.

[opebo]

Well then China. The Chinese are very practical folks opebo - unlike - to pick a name at random - you! 

So just have the offender killed by a spy - the Russians used to do this all the time.  Stick him with a poison-tipped umbrella or put radioactive waste in his Cheerios.

But seriously, of course there is no chance of any policy being implemented which will diminish privilege.  Heck if anyone serious tried to do so there'd be poison in his Cheerios.

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

One tax system based on individual income. Eliminate special treatment for marriage.

$0 - $10,000: 5%
$10,000 - $50,000: 15%
$50,000 - $100,000: 25%
$100,000 - $300,000: 35%
$300,000 - $1,000,000: 45%
$1,000,000+: 55%

Plus an annual 1% tax on the value of assets totaling over $10,000,000. Corporate tax is eliminated.

I've toyed with the idea of "intangible personal property" taxes and excess retained earnings taxes on corporations with dividends and capital gains taxed as ordinary income.

[ModerateCoward]

51% flat tax. Mincome of $12k untaxable.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'd put it at 30% flat, no deduction, no exemptions....then, once Americans understand how much the federal government is spending, they'll gather their pitchforks and light their torches and march on Wash DC and lynch all the Socialists.

...problem solved

[opebo]

No, jmfcst, the problem is the rich. 

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

I'd put it at 30% flat, no deduction, no exemptions....then, once Americans understand how much the federal government is spending, they'll gather their pitchforks and light their torches and march on Wash DC and lynch all the Socialists.

...problem solved

Nice and simple right?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  My pitchforks would be directed at the people who came up with a 30% flat tax!

[ModerateCoward]

51% flat tax. Mincome of $12k untaxable.

Also same tax on capital gains. I suspect my system will bring more money than Opebo's and be a lot more efficient. Elimination of some federal programs that would be redundant with Mincome. UHC, Paying off debt, free college education and many government owned unprofitable industries that will pay off in the future. About $5-6 trillion of government revenue every year. 
@ jmsfct people would realize how more powerful the government is at buying necessary services/purchases(housing+utilities, education, healthcare) that cost a lot and they would want to keep it's involvement.

Of course a lot would need to happen to get to this point.

[Progressive Realist]

One individual income tax rate.

$0-$5,000: 0%
$5,001-$10,000: 4%
$10,001-$15,000: 9%
$15,001-$30,000: 13%
$30,001-$60,000: 20%
$60,001-$150,000: 30%
$150,001-$500,000: 42%
$500,001 and above: 55%

[phk]

One individual income tax rate.

$0-$5,000: 0%
$5,001-$10,000: 4%
$10,001-$15,000: 9%
$15,001-$30,000: 13%
$30,001-$60,000: 20%
$60,001-$150,000: 30%
$150,001-$500,000: 42%
$500,001 and above: 55%

No break for widows?

[Verily]

One tax system based on individual income. Eliminate special treatment for marriage.

$0 - $10,000: 5%
$10,000 - $50,000: 15%
$50,000 - $100,000: 25%
$100,000 - $300,000: 35%
$300,000 - $1,000,000: 45%
$1,000,000+: 55%

Plus an annual 1% tax on the value of assets totaling over $10,000,000. Corporate tax is eliminated.

Valuing assets every year would be an administrative nightmare, and involve tons of litigation. So scratch that one. It would be great however for the precious metals and high quality jewelry market, and anything else that can be put into that little lockbox that Gore has stored somewhere, safe from "preying" eyes (I meant to type "prying," but I kind of like this typo, so I am going to leave it!).

It would not be so great for publically traded securities, and stuff whose value can be reported straight to the feds on some little 1099 type form however.

Precious metals are limited in supply. Most people who "invest" in gold/silver/etc. do so through easily traced transactions rather than by squirreling it away in their basements. Anyway, it's mostly a tax on intangible assets and real property, which are impossible to hide, and every rich person would still want to own them (because the returns are greater than 1% a year, and more than 1% greater than fixed assets that could be hidden, like jewelry).

Not an administrative nightmare at all. It's very hard to hide most assets completely. Those assets that can be hidden are not going to add up to enough to be worth searching for, so, yes, there will be some evasion, but I'm okay with some evasion if the tax is only imposed on very high net worth individuals to begin with (which of course it would be if the tax is only on total assets over $10M).

Obviously this system also eliminates special treatment for capital gains.

Other things that change include the elimination of the standard deduction and the vast majority of itemized deductions, including the charitable deduction. Many above-the-line deductions also go, most prominently the mortgage deduction. Also eliminate the child tax credit and dependency credits. The personal exemption is increased to $10,000 and phased out once income passes $10,000 up to $50,000, where it disappears.

(With those changes, it may be possible to put the rates a hair lower than I have them here. Mostly, I want a system with virtually no deductions/credits other than normative ones.)

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

Personal exemption phased out over 50K??  Dude, even I'm not that liberal.

One should note that raising taxes to confiscatory levels is not good for ANYONE!  I'm seeing some of the most extreme proposals being discussed here.  My opinion is to have a pro-growth, yet progressive base broadening tax code.  Payroll/SE tax elimination is a good first step.  I might even favor replacing it with a national GST of say 3-5% like Canada has to pay for health care reform.

[Verily]

Personal exemption phased out over 50K??  Dude, even I'm not that liberal.

Has nothing to do with "liberal". The personal exemption is intended to exempt from taxation a subsistence living. For those not living at or near subsistence level, it simply serves no purpose at all. In fact, continuing the personal exemption for those with high incomes has the perverse effect of benefiting high income taxpayers more.

Those making exactly $10,000 (and thus able to claim the full personal exemption), would pay at a rate of 5% on all of that income but have it all exempted, so they save $500 in taxes through the exemption. Here's what happens if we don't phase out the exemption:

$10k income, $500 advantage through personal exemption
$50k income, $1500 advantage through personal exemption (top marginal rate of 15%)
$100k income, $2500 advantage through personal exemption (etc.)
$300k income, $3500 advantage through personal exemption
$1M income, $4500 advantage through personal exemption
>$1M income, $5500 advantage through personal exemption

I see no reason why the subsistence bonus of a millionaire should be more than ten times greater than the subsistence bonus of the impoverished, especially when it's the impoverished person who is actually living at subsistence level. An alternative might be to just lop off $500 from everyone's tax burden (and have no personal exemption), but that still provides subsistence bonuses to people who clearly don't need them (really, no one above $20k or so in income is anywhere close to subsistence, but I made the top level $50k to match up with the brackets--it would fade out over the $10k to $50k range anyway, so the $49k person barely gets a personal exemption).

One should note that raising taxes to confiscatory levels is not good for ANYONE!  I'm seeing some of the most extreme proposals being discussed here.  My opinion is to have a pro-growth, yet progressive base broadening tax code.  Payroll/SE tax elimination is a good first step.  I might even favor replacing it with a national GST of say 3-5% like Canada has to pay for health care reform.

You don't have a f'ing clue what you're talking about. You're just spouting buzzwords.


Also, forgot something. Constitutional amendment to abolish community property because the Supreme Court are idiots. Damn former Spanish colonies, mucking everything up.

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

No clue what I'm talking about?  Try again, I passed the CPA exam and I'm FAR better at taxes than I am at audit.

And the "personal exemption" is $3,700 for 2011, not $10,000 as you said.  There's also a Standard Deduction or Itemized Deduction you can take, whichever is more advantageous to arrive at taxable income.  And current tax law phases exemptions and itemized deductions out over a certain amount.  Just MUCH higher than $50,000 for both phaseouts.  I understand the reason for such deductions and phaseouts.

As for the SE, I was once an IRS Auditor.  I've seen the negative effects of the SE tax on small businesses trying to make it, yet larger business have more tools at their disposal to reduce it.  I know very well how screwed up out current tax laws are.  Some need to be fixed.  Some are fine as they are.

I also forgot.  Poorer taxpayers also have EITC.  I've prepared returns where the amount of EITC was more than half what they made.  I'm not saying it's a bad thing.. well at least in part because it encourages having kids and not being able to fully take care of them.  Our tax code is best for 2 people- the wealthy and the poor, especially those who have kids.  Working people in the middle get stiffed, especially small business owners.  I could go on forever.. Child tax credit?  Yep, I even have issues with that...  For another day.

[Snowguy716]

Get rid of the entire tax code and replace income taxes with:

$0-$20,000:  0%
$20,001-40,000:  10%
$40,001-60,000:  20%
$60,001-100,000:  30%
$100,001-250,000:  40%
$250,001-$999,999:  50%
$1,000,000-$9,999,999: 60%
$10,000,000-19,999,999:  75%
$20,000,000+:                   90%

Adjust for inflation, of course.  All charitable giving is tax free with no maximum amount... in order to encourage the riches to DONATE DONATE DONATE!  At least the rich can then choose where the money they control goes instead of just paying it in taxes.

I'd also give those with income under $20,000 a 10% EITC on the first $10,000 and 5% on the second $10,000

[Wonkish1]

No clue what I'm talking about?  Try again, I passed the CPA exam and I'm FAR better at taxes than I am at audit.

And the "personal exemption" is $3,700 for 2011, not $10,000 as you said.  There's also a Standard Deduction or Itemized Deduction you can take, whichever is more advantageous to arrive at taxable income.  And current tax law phases exemptions and itemized deductions out over a certain amount.  Just MUCH higher than $50,000 for both phaseouts.  I understand the reason for such deductions and phaseouts.

As for the SE, I was once an IRS Auditor.  I've seen the negative effects of the SE tax on small businesses trying to make it, yet larger business have more tools at their disposal to reduce it.  I know very well how screwed up out current tax laws are.  Some need to be fixed.  Some are fine as they are.

I also forgot.  Poorer taxpayers also have EITC.  I've prepared returns where the amount of EITC was more than half what they made.  I'm not saying it's a bad thing.. well at least in part because it encourages having kids and not being able to fully take care of them.  Our tax code is best for 2 people- the wealthy and the poor, especially those who have kids.  Working people in the middle get stiffed, especially small business owners.  I could go on forever.. Child tax credit?  Yep, I even have issues with that...  For another day.

Not disagreeing with anything you've said. But you used to be an IRS tax auditor? EWW! What was it like working for the devil?
LOL

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

Get rid of the entire tax code and replace income taxes with:

$0-$20,000:  0%
$20,001-40,000:  10%
$40,001-60,000:  20%
$60,001-100,000:  30%
$100,001-250,000:  40%
$250,001-$999,999:  50%
$1,000,000-$9,999,999: 60%
$10,000,000-19,999,999:  75%
$20,000,000+:                   90%

Adjust for inflation, of course.  All charitable giving is tax free with no maximum amount... in order to encourage the riches to DONATE DONATE DONATE!  At least the rich can then choose where the money they control goes instead of just paying it in taxes.

I'd also give those with income under $20,000 a 10% EITC on the first $10,000 and 5% on the second $10,000

So you make $19,999=AWESOME! but $20,001, yer SOL!  Ilike your EITC proposal in part, but I'd work on a phaseout over 20K up to say 40K.