If you were to write tax policy...

[MaC]

What is your ideal taxation policy?  Would it be regressive, progressive, flat?  Is sales tax around?  Is income tax? Any new taxes? Higher taxes? Lower taxes?
Here's your chance to go in depth on it.  (Hope it isn't only a two way chat between Phillip and opebo)

[TheresNoMoney]

My tax policy would be progressive. Those making under $25,000 a year wouldn't even have to file (unless they were seeking a refund). Tax rates would range between 10%-40%.

Tax code would be simplified with fewer deductions but higher standard deduction and personal exemptions. There would be no national sales tax. State taxes would be reduced and the blue states would no longer subsidize the red states (as they do now).

Corporations would no longer be able to use offshore tax shelters to avoid paying income tax. The government would no longer subsize corporations that move jobs overseas.

[MaC]

State taxes would be reduced and the blue states would no longer subsidize the red states (as they do now).

Huh?  You have an example of this?

[opebo]

I would eliminate all sales taxes, and institute a highly progressive income tax with the top rate at 70% (at very high incomes of course).  I would also provide a stipend to all those who had no income, to be gradually reduced as the person 'earned' more money.

[bullmoose88]

State taxes would be reduced and the blue states would no longer subsidize the red states (as they do now).

Huh?  You have an example of this?

In terms of federal funding...it has to do with the fact the average income in blue states (think of New Jersey and Connecticut) is much higher than red states (ie Arkansas/Mississippi)...so for every one dollar taken in taxes from a blue state person (on average)...less than a dollar (I think in NJ's case...like 60 cents) is returned (in the form of grants/road money etc whatever)...whereas its like a 1.20 for the "poor" red states.

I think PA and maybe MI are the only blue states to recieve more than they put out...but even then, its almost negligible...as PA might get 1 or 2 cents more than it puts in.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...which once again demonstrates the sheer stupidity of Redstatebluestate. What actually happens (to put it extremely crudely) is that money from areas in "blue" states which are mostly Republican is redistributed to areas in "red" states that are mostly Democratic. An example would be money mostly raised from Northwest New Jersey taxpayers going to East Kentucky. It's not as though money from Bronx taxpayers goes to Cobb county, GA or anything...

[bullmoose88]

...which once again demonstrates the sheer stupidity of Redstatebluestate. What actually happens (to put it extremely crudely) is that money from areas in "blue" states which are mostly Republican is redistributed to areas in "red" states that are mostly Democratic. An example would be money mostly raised from Northwest New Jersey taxpayers going to East Kentucky. It's not as though money from Bronx taxpayers goes to Cobb county, GA or anything...

Al's right...the redstateblue state pissing contest here is BS

you take the philly burbs, the richest counties in all of PA (Montgomery, Bucks, Chester)...which generally (2/3rds at least) vote dem up top, but republican underneath...I think as tax money goes, we're a net loser...but its one of those (I think) examples of how Blue states really aren't subsidizing blue states, once you get away from the aggregate state numbers, which are decieving.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

you take the philly burbs, the richest counties in all of PA (Montgomery, Bucks, Chester)...which generally (2/3rds at least) vote dem up top, but republican underneath...I think as tax money goes, we're a net loser...but its one of those (I think) examples of how Blue states really aren't subsidizing blue states, once you get away from the aggregate state numbers, which are decieving.

...and if you look at the voting patterns of those counties in more detail you find that the very rich areas in those counties have no problems voting for Bush at all: Yes it's another FairData map. Take a close look at it, then switch to "median hh income" on the compare maps table...

[bullmoose88]

you take the philly burbs, the richest counties in all of PA (Montgomery, Bucks, Chester)...which generally (2/3rds at least) vote dem up top, but republican underneath...I think as tax money goes, we're a net loser...but its one of those (I think) examples of how Blue states really aren't subsidizing blue states, once you get away from the aggregate state numbers, which are decieving.

...and if you look at the voting patterns of those counties in more detail you find that the very rich areas in those counties have no problems voting for Bush at all: Yes it's another FairData map. Take a close look at it, then switch to "median hh income" on the compare maps table...

To tell you the truth...almost all of the counties...save maybe one or two townships/boroughs...are well above the state and national income averages.

Its not Westchester NY by anymeans...but even the blue collar families are comfortable.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To tell you the truth...almost all of the counties...save maybe one or two townships/boroughs...are well above the state and national income averages.

Its not Westchester NY by anymeans...but even the blue collar families are comfortable.

True but not really the point; the amount of money (in % terms) that gets redistributed in the U.S is pretty small; in effect the only areas that could be argued to be "subsidizing" (in a meaningful sense) poorer areas are the very rich areas (which is where the extra money that goes on redistributive stuff comes from. More or less).

[bullmoose88]

To tell you the truth...almost all of the counties...save maybe one or two townships/boroughs...are well above the state and national income averages.

Its not Westchester NY by anymeans...but even the blue collar families are comfortable.

True but not really the point; the amount of money (in % terms) that gets redistributed in the U.S is pretty small; in effect the only areas that could be argued to be "subsidizing" (in a meaningful sense) poorer areas are the very rich areas (which is where the extra money that goes on redistributive stuff comes from. More or less).

Oh I know that wasn't the point...I was just promoting the philly burbs.

[Giant Saguaro]

Typically and ideally... replace property taxes with a sales tax of maybe about 4.5 or 5% on everything, dramatically reduce state income taxes (by how much would depend). Progressive federal income tax with a top bracket of about 30 or 35%. Abolish death/inheritance taxes. Raise 'sin taxes' substantially.

[dazzleman]

...which once again demonstrates the sheer stupidity of Redstatebluestate. What actually happens (to put it extremely crudely) is that money from areas in "blue" states which are mostly Republican is redistributed to areas in "red" states that are mostly Democratic. An example would be money mostly raised from Northwest New Jersey taxpayers going to East Kentucky. It's not as though money from Bronx taxpayers goes to Cobb county, GA or anything...

Excellent point.  The argument by Scoonie is scandalously foolish, and a good example of liberal elitism.  Now suddenly, the Democrats are against redistribution of income because the states receiving the money aren't right politically?  Isn't that the argument?  Would Democrats have agreed with that if Republicans made this argument when poorer states voted strongly Democratic?

[Dave from Michigan]

my tax plan would be

income tax rates (lots of tax loopholes would be abolished)
10%
15%
20%
25%
29%
Abolish death taxes, capital gains taxes and  the Alternative Minimum Tax

I don't know if this would work I think it would cause a huge deficit.

[Emsworth]

At the federal level, income taxes would range from 15%-25%. (A flat tax may be ideal according to some views, but I don't think that it is very feasible.) The AMT, which leads to unnecessary compliance costs, would be abolished. Capital gains, estate, and gift taxes would also be repealed.

[DanielX]

Federal-level:
Flat income tax of 20% of all income over a certain amount ($15,000 for singles and businesses, $30,000 for married couples, add $5,000 per dependent). Applies to all income from individuals and businesses. Few if any exceptions, no AMT junk.
Tariffs from 0-100% on various foreign goods, weighted by diplomatic relations and the governmental status of said country.

State-level:
5% sales tax on all items except groceries. Applies to property sales, but no separate property tax.

Municipal-level:
Property billed for garbage disposal and other services
1% additional sales tax
1-5% extra excise taxes on 'sin' items (ie liquor, gambling, prostitution)

This list does not count lotteries, various fees (ie for drivers licenses, gun licenses, patents, etc) and fines (ie traffic tickets); or toll roads.

[opebo]

Individual including both income tax and Social Security:
0-10,000 = $12,000/year stipend
10K-20K = stipend gradually reduced to 0 at 20K
20K-30K = no tax
30K-40K = 10%
40K-70K = 20%
70K-100K = 40%
100K-150K = 50%
150K-500K = 60%
500K+       = 70%

Inheritance tax =
0-$5,000,000 = No Tax
5 to 10 million = 25%
$10,000,000+ = 50%

[MaC]

Federal: Abolish income tax, and death/inheritance and social security taxes.

State: If I had the ability to, and the budget was balanced, I'd lower from 6% (in my state) to 4% or 5%.

City-don't really know much about the millage issue to say.

As for federal taxes in general, there'd be taxes on goods excise taxes and tarriffs(I know I'm going against my party on this, however I support only smaller, more general tarriffs that would not be used to 'engineer' trade policy or the economy).  To make it fair, all taxes would have sunset provisions and they'd be distributed amongst a diverse set of goods so as not to particularly harm a single industry.  Each year, there'd be a hit somewhere, but the taxes would be temporary (ideally a year long for everything) so that the free market could recover from a bad season.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Ideally...
00%  $ < 30,000
06%  30,001 < $ < 45,000
12%  45,001 < $ < 60,000
18%  60,001 < $ < 75,000
24%  75,001 < $ < 90,000
30%  90,001 < $ < 135,000
36%  135,001 < $ < 180,000
39%  180,001 < $ < 225,000
42%  225,001 < $ < 300,000
45%  300,001 < $ < 375,000
48%  375,001 < $ < 450,000
49.5%  450,000 < $
Abolish all loopholes, except a $1500/child tax credit.
Inheritance Tax:
00%  $ < 375,000
15%  375,001 < $ < 750,000
30%  750,000 < $ < 1,500,000
45%  1,500,000 < $
I'm positive this would result in the elimination of the deficit in a year if spending is checked (but that's asking for too much from our current president who wants corporate welfare--welfare for abstract entities, rather than real people).  I'm sure our military wouldn't be underfunded anymore either (like Cheney's wanted to do since the 80's).

State:
No sales tax.
00.75%  $ < 30,000
01.5%  30,001 < $ < 45,000
03.0%  45,001 < $ < 60,000
04.5%  60,001 < $ < 75,000
06.0%  75,001 < $ < 150,000
07.5%  150,001 < $ < 225,000
09.0%  225,001 < $ < 300,000
10.5%  300,000 < $
We could increase the scholarships our state gives by 25% (my $26.8K scholarship for four years or $6700 would be $8375/yr!!!).
Local:
Property taxes on cars above $22,500 in value (2.25%), estates exceeding $225,000 in value (2.25%).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In terms of money going from blue states to red states, there are two major things being overlooked.

1. Pork barrel spending by Republicans - The average Republican district has something around $1 billion more in spending than the average Democratic district.

2. Cost of living, the diferences are worse than they sound, since the cost of living is so much higher in blue areas like San Francisco, Manhatten, or Boston, then red areas like WV, ND, and NE.

[WalterMitty]

Individual including both income tax and Social Security:
0-10,000 = $12,000/year stipend
10K-20K = stipend gradually reduced to 0 at 20K
20K-30K = no tax
30K-40K = 10%
40K-70K = 20%
70K-100K = 40%
100K-150K = 50%
150K-500K = 60%
500K+       = 70%

Inheritance tax =
0-$5,000,000 = No Tax
5 to 10 million = 25%
$10,000,000+ = 50%

nice to see opebo prefers a tax code that would benefit himself.

people who earn a decent wage should be taxed heavily.  those lazies that inherit up to 5 million shouldnt be taxed at all.

hmm.

opebo, redistribute your inheritance to help poors.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

WV, ND, and NE.

Out of the 6 Senators from those states, 5 are Democrats

[WalterMitty]

i bet scoonie felt differently about his red state/blue state nonsense when new hamphire was a red state....just four years ago.

[MaC]

opebo, krustytheklown, might I inquire as to why you'd need more than six brackets?  I think even with four you could get what you wanted...
1.poor-lower middle class
2.middleclass-upper middle class
3.rich
4.super rich

[opebo]

opebo, krustytheklown, might I inquire as to why you'd need more than six brackets?  I think even with four you could get what you wanted...
1.poor-lower middle class
2.middleclass-upper middle class
3.rich
4.super rich

There is no disadvantage to numerous brackets.  It takes only moments to figure such things, and in any case a complicated tax code is a boon to employment.