"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/15/2020 10:47 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Ed Pawlowski writes:

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.

Well, I'm all for taxing capital gains the same as income but a certain
political party has worked so hard against that. (Even though that
would also increase my taxes.)

The estate tax is complicated, but the free ride the rich get now
at the federal level is ridiculous. Again, one particular political
party is responsible.

None of these rules were put in place to benefit the accountants and
lawyers. More likely, they benefited someones chances of getting
reelected.

Still, I hold to my basic premise. If someone tells you they have
a simple solution to a complex problem, they most likely have no clue
what they are talking about.

So do you think the answer to the complex problem is to make it more
complex?

Nope.

That is how we got to this point.

Nope.

The entire tax code has to be tossed.

Just not feasible.

Start with what income is taxable. Get rid of loopholes and many
deductions.

No thanks, some stuff isnt income tho it looks like it is.

Should there be a national sales tax? VAT tax?

There are always a mixture of taxes.

Don't even think about a wealth tax.

No matter how good a plan would be, you won't get Congress to approve it.

Irrelevant to whether a flat rate income tax is viable. It isnt.