On 10/15/2020 8:51 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Ed Pawlowski writes:

On 10/15/2020 12:57 AM, %% wrote:


You can have it graduated to a certain income level but eliminate
all the other deductions.

And it is grossly unfair that someone
who has no real income at all but owns
a high value property should be taxed
on the increased value of the property
so they have to sell that to pay the tax
with those whose entire income is SS,

You seem to be making this far more complex. Owning a high value
property is not income. You can't spend it, it is just a paper higher
value. Tax would be on wages. not holdings.



Could be greatly simplified and be about 10 lines on a sheet of paper.
But would be grossly unfair to those on lower incomes.

Not if properly structured. No tax on the first $xxx. See how
simple? Very simplified but like this: A person earning say, $20,000
would pay no tax, a person earning $200,000 would only pay on $180,000

A flat tax except that there is one bracket for poverty level income.
So, similar to our current multi-bracket tax code except the really
high income earners get a huge tax cut.

Sounds like a great plan for me. I'm retired but 10% would still be
a large tax cut for me.

No, really sounds off the charts stupid.
A typical example of a simple mind attacking a complex problem
and claiming victory.



You don't have to give the high income earners a break. That is the
advantage is you eliminate a lot of deductions that only the wealthy
take advantage of. A complete restructuring of the crappy code as now
written with lots of loopholes.

The downside is you'd put some accountants and layers out of business
because they would not be needed.