Your Ideal Tax Code

[OSR stands with Israel]

Mine would be this

8%- Anyone making less the 25,000 dollars a year
16%-Anyone Making between 25,000-125,000 dollars a year
24%- Anyone Making between 125,000-250,000 dollars a year
32%- Anyone making above 250,000 a year

[DC Al Fine]

I thin it's kind of silly to talk about specific numbers and percentages since we don't have access to the relevant data. That said:

0-Poverty line: 0%
Another bracket from poverty line to middle class
Another from middle class to rich
A top bracket for rich folks

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Nonexistent.

[TNF]

Ideally, private property would be expropriated and placed under the stewardship of workers' councils, which would use it in accordance with a national (and later, continental and international, maybe even at some point solar system-wide) economic plan to produce for need, not for profit. So I'm not really sure how much of a need there would be for taxation.

In the here and now, I don't think there's such thing as an ideal tax code. Regressive taxation is terrible, user fees and licensing fees suck, and those are the ways that most state governments fund themselves. Unlike my liberal-left friends, I'm also not big on the idea of an income tax within the context of capitalism, because (a) it doesn't take into account how the income was earned, so someone doing productive work (i.e. a factory worker making cars who gets a lot of overtime) gets taxed at the same or even a higher rate than a useless parasite who plays the stock market all day; and (b) because 'taxing the rich' never really works under capitalism, because every dollar you add to their total tax burden is mitigated by a new loophole here or there, access to offshore tax havens, etc, etc. In effect, income tax increases end up hitting everyone else instead of their supposed targets, and I'm obviously not in favor of that.

[mencken]

One-time land tax, to be paid on Election Day.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This might be an unpopular opinion, but IMO marihuana should be legalised and taxed

[DC Al Fine]

This might be an unpopular opinion, but IMO marihuana should be legalised and taxed

LOL

[JerryArkansas]

0-21 Thousand 2% tax rate
21-50 Thousand 8% tax rate
50-100 Thousand 15% tax rate
100-250 Thousand 22% tax rate
250-1,000 Thousand 26% tax rate
1 Million and above 35% tax rate

For most of these, you have no deductions except for mortgage and for your children.

[DC Al Fine]

0-21 Thousand 2% tax rate
21-50 Thousand 8% tax rate
50-100 Thousand 15% tax rate
100-250 Thousand 22% tax rate
250-1,000 Thousand 26% tax rate
1 Million and above 35% tax rate

For most of these, you have no deductions except for mortgage and for your children.

Why a mortgage deduction?

[JerryArkansas]

0-21 Thousand 2% tax rate
21-50 Thousand 8% tax rate
50-100 Thousand 15% tax rate
100-250 Thousand 22% tax rate
250-1,000 Thousand 26% tax rate
1 Million and above 35% tax rate

For most of these, you have no deductions except for mortgage and for your children.

Why a mortgage deduction?

That is for those in the 50 Thousand to 250 Thousand range.  Something to help those folks out.  Also it is the second most popular deduction that is there now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ideally, a variety of taxes, none of which would be over 10%.

But we'd need quite a few new taxes to get income tax down to 10% federally as we expect a lot out of government these days.

[rpryor03]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

[Free Bird]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

[Mercenary]

Transaction tax. It is preferable to sales since it would hit all kinds of economic activity including standard purchases, stock trades and speculation, bank activity, etc.

And since all transactions would be taxed at a single tiny percentage it would end the use of taxation to manipulate behavior. Government should not reward or punish a person based on how they live their life when their actions are legal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This might be an unpopular opinion, but IMO marihuana should be legalised and taxed

Not that unpopular. The voters in 4 states did that.

[H. Ross Peron]

A bit tired rn, so I'll stick to general principles without hard numbers:
A highly progressive income tax system with several brackets. Only a few deductions (for children, charity etc.) and limited to a hard cash amount.
No corporate tax.
Capital gains/investment taxed as income.
A fairly high estate/inheritance tax rate with several brackets.
Some sort of a Value-Added Tax system with exceptions for basic necessities.

[PJ]

• Income and capital gains should be taxed at the same rate and be steeply progressive, with the top rate around 80%.
• Abolish the corporate income tax.
• Instate a 15% net worth tax on those with a net worth above $1 million.
• Instate a 100% inheritance tax on all inherited wealth.
• Eliminate the payroll tax cap.
• Prevent states and local governments from levying taxes and fund local governments through federal tax rates
• Eliminate most deductions and loopholes (keep a few like Children's tax credit, etc.)
• Abolish sales taxes, sin taxes, and all regressive user fees.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but IMO marihuana should be legalised and taxed

Not that unpopular. The voters in 4 states did that.

[Maxwell]

I thin it's kind of silly to talk about specific numbers and percentages since we don't have access to the relevant data. That said:

0-Poverty line: 0%
Another bracket from poverty line to middle class
Another from middle class to rich
A top bracket for rich folks

This. Certainly a top bracket at 40% or below. I would accept 40% with the destruction of the corporate tax.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All right, let's give it a try.


Income Tax

All types of income (salaries, capital gains, donations, and even government benefits) are taxed. For the purposes of the brackets below, taxed income is calculated as the household's income divided by 1 + 1 for every occupant above 25, 0.7 for every occupant between 12 and 25, and 0.5 for every occupant below 12.

Individuals earning less than 50% of the median taxed income receive a negative income tax bringing them at 50%.

Marginal Tax Rates:
50%-75% of the MTI: 0%
75%-90% of the MTI: 1%
90%-100% of the MTI: 5%
100%-110% of the MTI: 10%
110%-120% of the MTI: 15%
120%-130% of the MTI: 20%
130%-150% of the MTI: 25%
150%-175% of the MTI: 30%
175%-200% of the MTI: 35%
2 to 2.5 MTI: 40%
2.5 to 3 MTI: 45%
3 to 4 MTI: 50%
4 to 5 MTI: 55%
5 to 6 MTI: 60%
6 to 7 MTI: 65%
7 to 8 MTI: 70%
8 to 9 MTI: 75%
9 to 10 MTI: 80%
10 to 15 MTI: 85%
15 to 20 MTI: 90%
20 to 50 MTI: 95%
Over 50 MTI: 99%

The total amount of tax deductions may not exceed 50% of the MTI.


Wealth Tax:

Marginal tax rates:
0 to 500K: 0%
500K to 1M: 0.5%
1M - 2M: 1%
2M - 5M: 2%
5M - 10M: 3%
10M - 20M: 4%
20M - 50M: 5%
50M - 100M: 6%
100M - 200M: 7%
200M - 500M: 8%
500M - 1B: 9%
Over 1B: 10%

These brackets will be adjusted yearly for inflation.


Inheritance Tax

Marginal tax rates:
0 to 200K: 1%
200K - 500K: 5%
500K to 1M: 10%
1M - 2M: 25%
2M - 5M: 50%
5M - 10M: 75%
10M - 20M: 90%
20M - 50M: 95%
50M - 100M: 99%
Over 100M: 100%

These brackets will be adjusted yearly for inflation.


Value-Added Tax

0% for non-elaborate food, housing, medicine and other basic goods.
5% for cultural activities.
10% standard rate.
30% on luxury goods.


No corporate or payroll tax.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

For income taxes, it would be this

$25,000 and under: 2%
$25,000-$50,000: 5%
$50,000-$100,000: 7%
$100,000-$250,000: 10%
$250,000 and over: 15%

[PJ]

Antonio, why would you tax government benefits? Seems a bit redundant, no?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Some other taxes:

• No estate tax
• Flat corporate income tax of 15%, collected only on income generated in the US
• Flat 5% capital gains tax
• Raise cigarette tax to $2 per pack, establish 20% federal tax on cigars and 15% on pipe tobacco
• Raise beer taxes to $25 per barrel, wine taxes to $1.50 per gallon, and distilled spirit sales to $18 per gallon.
• Remove most loopholes and deductions
• Establish tariffs based on environmental sustainability

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio, why would you tax government benefits? Seems a bit redundant, no?

This provides a corrective to the situation where, by the very design of a program, people end up getting too huge checks from the government. For example, in most countries, unemployment benefits and pensions are based on previously-earned income, which means that wealthy people get comparatively more (and, since the income is pooled in the household, the problem gets even worse as one of the spouse keeps earning a high salary alongside said government benefits). Changing this system would be impractical both politically and economically, but at least we can still make sure that those who get the juiciest deals pay their fair share back to the State.

[PJ]

Antonio, why would you tax government benefits? Seems a bit redundant, no?

This provides a corrective to the situation where, by the very design of a program, people end up getting too huge checks from the government. For example, in most countries, unemployment benefits and pensions are based on previously-earned income, which means that wealthy people get comparatively more (and, since the income is pooled in the household, the problem gets even worse as one of the spouse keeps earning a high salary alongside said government benefits). Changing this system would be impractical both politically and economically, but at least we can still make sure that those who get the juiciest deals pay their fair share back to the State.

That's understandable, but IMO, it would make more sense to stop basing benefits off of previously earned income in the first place.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio, why would you tax government benefits? Seems a bit redundant, no?

This provides a corrective to the situation where, by the very design of a program, people end up getting too huge checks from the government. For example, in most countries, unemployment benefits and pensions are based on previously-earned income, which means that wealthy people get comparatively more (and, since the income is pooled in the household, the problem gets even worse as one of the spouse keeps earning a high salary alongside said government benefits). Changing this system would be impractical both politically and economically, but at least we can still make sure that those who get the juiciest deals pay their fair share back to the State.

That's understandable, but IMO, it would make more sense to stop basing benefits off of previously earned income in the first place.

As I said, that tends to be problematic politically. Income-based Welfare policies enjoy much greater public support than flat-rate benefits, because the former provides a slice of the cake to the middle classes, which often are the politically decisive constituency on these matters. The reason Scandinavian countries managed to have such an extensive Welfare State is because these middle-class interests were fulfilled, through things like supplementary pensions. In the end, the poor still end up benefiting from it.

In addition, it does make some sense for pensions and unemployment benefits to be indexed on previous incomes (with a reasonable cap at, say, two median incomes), since an important goal of welfare policy is to shield individuals from economic uncertainty.