The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it has
so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are being
taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross domestic
product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1). Our present
income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or about 10% of our
nations income (1). But IRS statistics show that the middel income
workers pay average tax return contribution rate is 18% and a marginal
tax rate of 28% of taxable income(2). This means that our present tax
base (taxable income) is slightly less than half of total income or GDP.
Middle income wage earners are paying 18% instead of 10.2% so that
others can pay nothing, zip, zero! If all income producing sources were
taxed at a single unitary tax rate of 10% the federal government would
collect more in taxes than it does now and every one would pay his fair
share of taxes. The Ten Percent Flat Tax would be much easier to
administer because all income producing business transactions could be
taxed at their source without regard to who the recipient might or might
not be. At the end of the year, no private citizen would ever again owe
the IRS even one penny more on his wages, his dividends, or his
interest. No citizen who worked for wages would ever again have to file
a federal income tax return. Only those citizens with income property
and businesses would file income tax returns. The IRS would no longer
process over 100 million individual tax returns, but would only have to
process 10 million business returns. Hundreds of thousands of IRS agents
and tax accountants would then be free to live useful and productive lives.
A summary of the ten percent flat tax.

All real income will be taxed once at a flat rate of 10%.
There will be no deductions or exemptions of any kind.
There will be no tax credits of any kind.
The value of all benefits will be taxed. This includes welfare,
health insurance premiums , pension plan contributions, company cars, etc.
Taxes will be collected by businesses.
Individuals will no longer file income tax returns.·
Interest will be taxed at a rate of 5% in lieu of indexing for
inflation.
Dividends will be taxed at 10% but will be a deductible business
expense.
Short term capital gains will be taxed at 10%
Long term capital gains will be taxed at 5%
Estate taxes will be a flat 10%.
A tariff of 10% will be imposed on all imports.
The Minimum wage will be increased to compensate for taxation on
minimum wage workers and their loss of welfare benefits.
Health care insurance premiums will count toward meeting the
minimum wage.
Depreciation and interest expense will no longer be allowed.·

Part A. Taxes on personal income

1. Wages and earned income will be taxed at a flat rate of 10 % starting
with the first dollar earned. The taxes will be withheld from the
workers paycheck and the money remitted to the IRS just as is done
today. A W-2 form will be supplied to the worker but since all taxes due
will have been paid, the worker need not file an income tax report.

2.Health insurance premiums paid by the employer will be subject to the
10% tax. The employer will deduct 10% of the premium value paid on the
workers behalf from the employees pay check. The taxes will be remitted
by the employer to the IRS.

3 Pension plan premiums paid by the employer will be subject to the 10%
tax. The employer will deduct 10% of the premium value paid on the
workers behalf from the employees pay check. The taxes will be remitted
by the employer to the IRS.

4.Company Cars, housing allowances, and other company perks will be
subject to the 10% tax. The employer will deduct 10% of the value of
such perks from the workers pay check. The taxes will be remitted by the
employer to the IRS.

5. Interest received from banks, savings and loans, government bonds and
other financial instruments will be subject to a 5% tax. The financial
institution will deduct 5% from all interest distributions and remit the
tax to the IRS. The tax rate of 5% instead of 10% is imposed because
inflation reduces the value of savings by about ½ the going interest rate.

6 Dividends received on corporate stocks will be taxed at 10%. The
corporation will withhold 10% from all dividend distributions and remit
the tax to the IRS. Dividends will be a deductible business expense. We
will no longer have double taxation of dividends.

7. Short Term Capital Gains will be taxed at a rate of 10%. The
brokerage house or the escrow department will remit 10% of the short
term capital gains on the sale or exchange of property to the IRS. Short
term is any asset held less than seven years.

8. Long term capital gains will be taxed at a rate of 5%. The brokerage
house or the escrow department will remit 5% of the long term capital
gain on the sale or exchange of property to the IRS. We define "Long
Term" as any asset held for seven years or longer. The tax rate on long
term capital gains is 5% to compensate for the devaluation of the dollar
due to ever present inflation. A more precise alternative would be to
index all capital assets for inflation. But I believe that the 5%
rate after seven years accomplishes this objective and is much less
subject to debate.

9. No deduction or tax credit of any kind will be allowed for any
interest paid for any reason or purpose.

10. No other deductions or exemption will be allowed for any reason.

11. Estate taxes will be a flat 10%. There will be no exemptions or
deductions of any kind. This tax will start at the first penny of
inheritance.
Part B . Taxes on business

1. All net profits will be subject to a 10% tax.

2. Interest paid will no longer be a deductible expense. Companies built
with sweat equity and money equity will no longer suffer discrimination
relative to companies built on borrowed money.

3. Depreciation will no longer be a deductible expense.

4. Losses will no longer be carried forward. Profits will be determined
year to year.

5. Losses will no longer be transferred from one company to another.

6. Dividends paid out will be a deductible expense. No more double
taxation of dividends.

7. Executive salaries. Any salary in excess of 200,000 dollar per year (
the salary of the president of the United States) will be declared
excessive. That portion of the salary in excess of 200,000 dollars will
be subject to a 10% surcharge and paid by the corporation. Some may
argue that an excessive salary tax is not fair or flat. But there is a
real problem with CEO and other high paid executives taking obscene
salaries and perks while the owners of the companies, the stock holders
get next to nothing in dividends. Let these wizz kids get their extra
bonus out of dividends like the owners and investors in the companies.

8. Company Cars. The value of any company car provided to an employee by
a company will be subject to a 10% tax. This tax will be withheld from
the employees pay check and the tax remitted to the IRS by the company.
The same rule shall apply to any other company perk like company
housing, paid vacation trips, or any other perk.
Part C. Taxes on the Working Poor.

federal transfer payments and tax forgiveness of low wage workers amount
to a negative income tax in the order of 150 billion dollare each year.
This loss to the federal treasury is almost 20% of total income tax
revenues. If this drain on our treasury is not stopped we will not be
able to have a balanced budget with a 10% flat tax but would have to
increase the rate to about 13%. We are not talking about unemployed
here. We are talking about people working for substandard wages. If all
our workers earned a living wage these government handouts would be
unnecessary.

1.The ten percent income tax shall be levied on all earned income
no matter how small. The income tax shall start with the first penny
earned and will finish with the last penny earned.
We acknowledge that the present minimum wage is not a living wage
and that we cannot expect any worker making the present minimum wage to
pay this tax. But we must insist that all citizens pay their fair share
to support our government. For this reason we demand that the minimum
wage be increased by $0.50 per hour each year over the next five years
as this ten percent flat tax is instituted.
For the first year that the flat tax is instituted the minimum wage
increase will just keep up with the tax increase so the minimum wage
worker will just break even. For that reason we will not start
dismantling the earned income credits until the third year.
All earned income tax credits will be completely phased out over
the third, fourth and fifth year of the ten percent flat tax plan.
All food stamps and housing assistance for the working poor will be
phased out over the first five years of the flat tax plan.

Part D. Tariffs and Most Favored Nations

All work has dignity and therefore all workers deserve a living wage. We
must recognize that we live in a global economy where transport over
intercontinental distances is no longer expensive. We must also
recognize that in many countries child labor, slave labor, and prison
labor are commonplace. These same countries have very low or non
existent minimum wage laws, fair labor standards, and no workman
compensation system. If our companies have to compete in a price war
with competitors in these countries we will loose even more good jobs.
Our workers need protection from these unfair competitors. We do not
mean to stifle honest competition but we do need to even the playing field.

1. All nations having most favored nation trading status with the United
States will have a flat Tariff of 10% levied on all goods of any kind
and description coming into our country.

2. No nation will be granted most favored nation status if its negative
trade balance with the United States exceeds ten percent in the past
calendar year.

3. Nations such as China an Japan who do not meet this criterion will
have an additional 10 percent duty or a total tariff of 20% on all goods
of any kind and description.
Part E. Examples of the 10% flat tax on various classes of individuals
as defined by the Kathy Kristol article in the Los Angeles times. I have
added the 10% column for comparison.

Kathy Kristol publihed an income tax chart in the Los Angeles Times
showing winners and loosers if the Forbes 17% tax plan were inacted into
law. Her argument was that the forbes plan was unfair because the more
wealty of our citizens would get the largest tax break. She failed to
point out the obvious inequality in both the present tax scheme and the
forbes plan. Both plans are unfair because people with identical incomes
pay vastly different taxes. I used her data for the present system and
for the
forbes plan. I the applied my tax plan to these hypothtetical
individuals. the results are shown below. In my plan all taxes are equal
except for small differences for the retired people who happen to
receive their income from dividends, interest, and capital gains instead
of wages. I do not want to defend how typical each of these particular
groups is or is not. The important thing is that people and famillies
with equal income do not pay the same taxes..this in not fair in my
judgment.
Classification Gross Income Present Tax 17% Tax Plan 10% Tax Plan
Single- Renter $30,500 $3,713 $3,320 $3,050
Single Home Owner $30,500 $3,158 $3,230 $3,050
Single- Retired $30,500 $3,713 $4,500 $3,050
Married no kids Renter $61,000 $7,235 $6,460 $6,100
Married no kids home owner $61,000 $5,404 $6,460 $6,100
Married no kids retired $61,000 $7,235 ZERO $6,100
Married,2 kids renter $61,000 $6484 $4,760 $6,100
Married, 2 kids home owner $61,000 $3,904 $4.760 $6,100
Married retired no mortgage $61,000 $7,235 ZERO $6,100
Married 2 kids renter $230,000 $54,561 $20,060 $22,250
Married 2 kids Home owner $230,000 $45,553 $20,060 $22,250
Married Retired no mortgage $230,000 $54,561 $49,801 $20,000
Part F. Taxes collected in the year 1993 in billions of dollars.(1)
Income Category Tax Base Taxes Collected Ave. Tax Rate
Personal income $5,429 $509.7 9.4%
Social Security $2,940 $214.2 7.3%
Excise Taxes $500 $48.1 9.6%
Estate Taxes $50.4 $12.6 25%
Total personal taxes $5,429 $784.6 14.5%

Business Taxes Tax Base Taxes collected Ave. Tax Rate
Income taxes $467.3 $117.5 25.1%
Social Security $2,940 $214.2 7.3%
Customs Duties $500 $18.8 3.8%
Fed Reserve Deposits $500 $14.9 3%
Total business taxes $4,407 $365.4 8%

Total of all Taxes $6,358 $1,150 18.1%

Part G. Taxes that would have been collected in 1993 if we had the 10%
flat tax.(3)
Income category Tax Base Tax Collected Ave. Tax Rate
Personal income $2,940 $294.2 10%
Social Security $2,940 $214.2 7.3%
Interest $695 $34.8 5%
Dividends $158 $15.8 10%
Self Employment $722 $72.2 10%
Health and Pensions $585 $58.5 10%
Gov. Transfer payments $890 $89 10%
Total Individual Taxes $5,990 $778.7 13%

Corporate profits $467 $46.7 10%
Corporate Dividends $158 zero zero
Business interest $695 69.5 10%
Depreciation $671 67.1 10%
Social Security $2,940 $214.2 7.3%
Customs Duties $500 $50 10%
Fed Reserve Deposits $500 $14.9 3%
Total corporate taxes $5990 $462.4 7.5%

Total of all tax receipts $6,358 $1,241.1 19.5%

On 10/14/2020 9:14 PM, Turd Ferguson wrote:

The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it has
so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are being
taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross domestic
product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1). Our present
income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or about 10% of our
nations income (1).

Steve? Steve Forbes, is that you? Still trying?

Makes sense but I doubt it would be seriously considered by Congress.

"Turd Ferguson" wrote in message
...

The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

Yes, but a 10% flat tax would be even more
unfair given that the bottom HALF of tax
payers currently pay no federal income tax.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it has
so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are being taxed
so that the other half pays no taxes whatever.

Yes,

Our gross domestic product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996
.(1). Our present income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or
about 10% of our nations income (1).

The GDP isn't the nation's income.

But IRS statistics show that the middel income workers pay average tax
return contribution rate is 18% and a marginal tax rate of 28% of taxable
income(2).

But given that the bottom half of taxpayers pay no
federal income tax, those numbers are very misleading.

This means that our present tax base (taxable income) is slightly less
than half of total income or GDP.

The GDP isn't the nation's income.

Middle income wage earners are paying 18% instead of 10.2%

No they are not given that given that the bottom
half of taxpayers pay no federal income tax

so that others can pay nothing, zip, zero!

It clearly isnt the middle income earners that are paying for that.

If all income producing sources were taxed at a single unitary tax rate of
10%

It makes no sense to be taxing those whose entire income
is benefit/welfare, because that isnt money they earn, its
just shuffling money from one govt pile to anther.

And makes no sense to be taxing those whose entire
income is a single minimum wage which is so low that
it is very hard to exist on that level of income either.

the federal government would collect more in taxes than it does now

Thats very arguable indeed and you only get that result
by assuming that GDP is national income and it isnt.
Much of the national GDP isnt actually income at all,
most obviously with unpaid work.

and every one would pay his fair share of taxes.

Thats wrong too. You can make a good case that
its a lot fairer for those with very high incomes to
pay more than just 10% of their income in tax and
to not grab 10% of the income of those whose
entire income is the minimum wage or even lower
with those who are forced by their circumstances
to no even get the legal minimum wage.

The Ten Percent Flat Tax would be much easier to administer

Yes,

because all income producing business transactions could be taxed at their
source without regard to who the recipient might or might not be.

It doesnt work like that with business income.

At the end of the year, no private citizen would ever again owe the IRS
even one penny more on his wages, his dividends, or his interest.

Thats not right either with income they receive
from other than their wages, like casual work.

No citizen who worked for wages would ever again have to file a federal
income tax return.

Thats not right either with those whose income is casual work.

Only those citizens with income property and businesses would file income
tax returns.

Wrong with casual work.

The IRS would no longer process over 100
million individual tax returns, but would only have to process 10 million
business returns.

Wrong again.

Hundreds of thousands of IRS agents and tax accountants would then be free
to live useful and productive lives.

Or have no paid work.

A summary of the ten percent flat tax.

All real income will be taxed once at a flat rate of 10%.
There will be no deductions or exemptions of any kind.

Just not feasible with business income.

There will be no tax credits of any kind.

Just not feasible with business income.

The value of all benefits will be taxed. This includes welfare,

Makes no sense at all.

health insurance premiums , pension plan contributions, company cars, etc.
Taxes will be collected by businesses.

Doesnt work with casual work.

Individuals will no longer file income tax returns.·

They would have to with casual work.

Interest will be taxed at a rate of 5% in lieu of indexing for
inflation.

Nothing fair about that.

Dividends will be taxed at 10% but will be a deductible business
expense.
Short term capital gains will be taxed at 10%
Long term capital gains will be taxed at 5%

And that would require a tax return.

Estate taxes will be a flat 10%.

Makes no sense at all.

A tariff of 10% will be imposed on all imports.

You are mangling sales taxes with income taxes.

The Minimum wage will be increased to compensate for taxation on
minimum wage workers and their loss of welfare benefits.

Pity about those on just a bit more than the minimum wage.

Health care insurance premiums will count toward meeting the inimum
wage.

Depreciation and interest expense will no longer be allowed.·

That is completely mad.

none of the rest of this worth bothering with

Part A. Taxes on personal income

1. Wages and earned income will be taxed at a flat rate of 10 % starting
with the first dollar earned. The taxes will be withheld from the workers
paycheck and the money remitted to the IRS just as is done today. A W-2
form will be supplied to the worker but since all taxes due will have been
paid, the worker need not file an income tax report.

2.Health insurance premiums paid by the employer will be subject to the
10% tax. The employer will deduct 10% of the premium value paid on the
workers behalf from the employees pay check. The taxes will be remitted by
the employer to the IRS.

3 Pension plan premiums paid by the employer will be subject to the 10%
tax. The employer will deduct 10% of the premium value paid on the workers
behalf from the employees pay check. The taxes will be remitted by the
employer to the IRS.

4.Company Cars, housing allowances, and other company perks will be
subject to the 10% tax. The employer will deduct 10% of the value of such
perks from the workers pay check. The taxes will be remitted by the
employer to the IRS.

5. Interest received from banks, savings and loans, government bonds and
other financial instruments will be subject to a 5% tax. The financial
institution will deduct 5% from all interest distributions and remit the
tax to the IRS. The tax rate of 5% instead of 10% is imposed because
inflation reduces the value of savings by about ½ the going interest rate.

6 Dividends received on corporate stocks will be taxed at 10%. The
corporation will withhold 10% from all dividend distributions and remit
the tax to the IRS. Dividends will be a deductible business expense. We
will no longer have double taxation of dividends.

7. Short Term Capital Gains will be taxed at a rate of 10%. The brokerage
house or the escrow department will remit 10% of the short term capital
gains on the sale or exchange of property to the IRS. Short term is any
asset held less than seven years.

8. Long term capital gains will be taxed at a rate of 5%. The brokerage
house or the escrow department will remit 5% of the long term capital gain
on the sale or exchange of property to the IRS. We define "Long Term" as
any asset held for seven years or longer. The tax rate on long term
capital gains is 5% to compensate for the devaluation of the dollar due to
ever present inflation. A more precise alternative would be to index all
capital assets for inflation. But I believe that the 5%
rate after seven years accomplishes this objective and is much less
subject to debate.

9. No deduction or tax credit of any kind will be allowed for any interest
paid for any reason or purpose.

10. No other deductions or exemption will be allowed for any reason.

11. Estate taxes will be a flat 10%. There will be no exemptions or
deductions of any kind. This tax will start at the first penny of
inheritance.
Part B . Taxes on business

1. All net profits will be subject to a 10% tax.

2. Interest paid will no longer be a deductible expense. Companies built
with sweat equity and money equity will no longer suffer discrimination
relative to companies built on borrowed money.

3. Depreciation will no longer be a deductible expense.

4. Losses will no longer be carried forward. Profits will be determined
year to year.

5. Losses will no longer be transferred from one company to another.

6. Dividends paid out will be a deductible expense. No more double
taxation of dividends.

7. Executive salaries. Any salary in excess of 200,000 dollar per year (
the salary of the president of the United States) will be declared
excessive. That portion of the salary in excess of 200,000 dollars will be
subject to a 10% surcharge and paid by the corporation. Some may argue
that an excessive salary tax is not fair or flat. But there is a real
problem with CEO and other high paid executives taking obscene salaries
and perks while the owners of the companies, the stock holders get next to
nothing in dividends. Let these wizz kids get their extra bonus out of
dividends like the owners and investors in the companies.

8. Company Cars. The value of any company car provided to an employee by a
company will be subject to a 10% tax. This tax will be withheld from the
employees pay check and the tax remitted to the IRS by the company. The
same rule shall apply to any other company perk like company housing, paid
vacation trips, or any other perk.
Part C. Taxes on the Working Poor.

federal transfer payments and tax forgiveness of low wage workers amount
to a negative income tax in the order of 150 billion dollare each year.
This loss to the federal treasury is almost 20% of total income tax
revenues. If this drain on our treasury is not stopped we will not be able
to have a balanced budget with a 10% flat tax but would have to increase
the rate to about 13%. We are not talking about unemployed here. We are
talking about people working for substandard wages. If all our workers
earned a living wage these government handouts would be unnecessary.

1.The ten percent income tax shall be levied on all earned income no
matter how small. The income tax shall start with the first penny earned
and will finish with the last penny earned.
We acknowledge that the present minimum wage is not a living wage and
that we cannot expect any worker making the present minimum wage to pay
this tax. But we must insist that all citizens pay their fair share to
support our government. For this reason we demand that the minimum wage be
increased by $0.50 per hour each year over the next five years as this ten
percent flat tax is instituted.
For the first year that the flat tax is instituted the minimum wage
increase will just keep up with the tax increase so the minimum wage
worker will just break even. For that reason we will not start dismantling
the earned income credits until the third year.
All earned income tax credits will be completely phased out over the
third, fourth and fifth year of the ten percent flat tax plan.
All food stamps and housing assistance for the working poor will be
phased out over the first five years of the flat tax plan.

Part D. Tariffs and Most Favored Nations

All work has dignity and therefore all workers deserve a living wage. We
must recognize that we live in a global economy where transport over
intercontinental distances is no longer expensive. We must also recognize
that in many countries child labor, slave labor, and prison labor are
commonplace. These same countries have very low or non existent minimum
wage laws, fair labor standards, and no workman compensation system. If
our companies have to compete in a price war with competitors in these
countries we will loose even more good jobs. Our workers need protection
from these unfair competitors. We do not mean to stifle honest competition
but we do need to even the playing field.

1. All nations having most favored nation trading status with the United
States will have a flat Tariff of 10% levied on all goods of any kind and
description coming into our country.

2. No nation will be granted most favored nation status if its negative
trade balance with the United States exceeds ten percent in the past
calendar year.

3. Nations such as China an Japan who do not meet this criterion will have
an additional 10 percent duty or a total tariff of 20% on all goods of any
kind and description.
Part E. Examples of the 10% flat tax on various classes of individuals as
defined by the Kathy Kristol article in the Los Angeles times. I have
added the 10% column for comparison.

Kathy Kristol publihed an income tax chart in the Los Angeles Times
showing winners and loosers if the Forbes 17% tax plan were inacted into
law. Her argument was that the forbes plan was unfair because the more
wealty of our citizens would get the largest tax break. She failed to
point out the obvious inequality in both the present tax scheme and the
forbes plan. Both plans are unfair because people with identical incomes
pay vastly different taxes. I used her data for the present system and for
the
forbes plan. I the applied my tax plan to these hypothtetical individuals.
the results are shown below. In my plan all taxes are equal except for
small differences for the retired people who happen to receive their
income from dividends, interest, and capital gains instead of wages. I do
not want to defend how typical each of these particular groups is or is
not. The important thing is that people and famillies with equal income do
not pay the same taxes..this in not fair in my judgment.
Classification Gross Income Present Tax 17% Tax Plan 10% Tax Plan
Single- Renter $30,500 $3,713 $3,320 $3,050
Single Home Owner $30,500 $3,158 $3,230 $3,050
Single- Retired $30,500 $3,713 $4,500 $3,050
Married no kids Renter $61,000 $7,235 $6,460 $6,100
Married no kids home owner $61,000 $5,404 $6,460 $6,100
Married no kids retired $61,000 $7,235 ZERO $6,100
Married,2 kids renter $61,000 $6484 $4,760 $6,100
Married, 2 kids home owner $61,000 $3,904 $4.760 $6,100
Married retired no mortgage $61,000 $7,235 ZERO $6,100
Married 2 kids renter $230,000 $54,561 $20,060 $22,250
Married 2 kids Home owner $230,000 $45,553 $20,060 $22,250
Married Retired no mortgage $230,000 $54,561 $49,801 $20,000
Part F. Taxes collected in the year 1993 in billions of dollars.(1)
Income Category Tax Base Taxes Collected Ave. Tax Rate
Personal income $5,429 $509.7 9.4%
Social Security $2,940 $214.2 7.3%
Excise Taxes $500 $48.1 9.6%
Estate Taxes $50.4 $12.6 25%
Total personal taxes $5,429 $784.6 14.5%

Business Taxes Tax Base Taxes collected Ave. Tax Rate
Income taxes $467.3 $117.5 25.1%
Social Security $2,940 $214.2 7.3%
Customs Duties $500 $18.8 3.8%
Fed Reserve Deposits $500 $14.9 3%
Total business taxes $4,407 $365.4 8%

Total of all Taxes $6,358 $1,150 18.1%

Part G. Taxes that would have been collected in 1993 if we had the 10%
flat tax.(3)
Income category Tax Base Tax Collected Ave. Tax Rate
Personal income $2,940 $294.2 10%
Social Security $2,940 $214.2 7.3%
Interest $695 $34.8 5%
Dividends $158 $15.8 10%
Self Employment $722 $72.2 10%
Health and Pensions $585 $58.5 10%
Gov. Transfer payments $890 $89 10%
Total Individual Taxes $5,990 $778.7 13%

Corporate profits $467 $46.7 10%
Corporate Dividends $158 zero zero
Business interest $695 69.5 10%
Depreciation $671 67.1 10%
Social Security $2,940 $214.2 7.3%
Customs Duties $500 $50 10%
Fed Reserve Deposits $500 $14.9 3%
Total corporate taxes $5990 $462.4 7.5%

Total of all tax receipts $6,358 $1,241.1 19.5%

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/14/2020 9:14 PM, Turd Ferguson wrote:

The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it has
so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are being
taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross domestic
product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1). Our present
income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or about 10% of our
nations income (1).

Steve? Steve Forbes, is that you? Still trying?

Makes sense

No it does not.

but I doubt it would be seriously considered by Congress.

On 10/14/2020 10:21 PM, %% wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/14/2020 9:14 PM, Turd Ferguson wrote:

The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it
has so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are
being taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross
domestic product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1).
Our present income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or
about 10% of our nations income (1).

Steve?Â* Steve Forbes, is that you?Â* Still trying?

Makes sense

No it does not.



With some modification it does. IIRC the original Forbes plan had some
minimum before you paid anything. You can have it graduated to a
certain income level but eliminate all the other deductions. Could be
greatly simplified and be about 10 lines on a sheet of paper.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/14/2020 10:21 PM, %% wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/14/2020 9:14 PM, Turd Ferguson wrote:

The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it
has so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are
being taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross
domestic product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1). Our
present income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or about
10% of our nations income (1).

Steve? Steve Forbes, is that you? Still trying?

Makes sense

No it does not.

With some modification it does.

No flat rate income tax ever does. It makes no sense
at all to be taxing those whose entire income is the
US minimum wage or lower at the same rate as
someone with a very high professional income.

And the rate would have to be a lot higher than
10% to collect the same total amount of money too.

IIRC the original Forbes plan had some minimum before you paid anything.

Then it isnt a flat rate income tax and it
still makes no sense to be taxing those
on the lowest incomes that have to pay
that rate at the same rate as those who are
receiving a very high professional income
or those like sports fools or film 'stars'
etc on a very high income.

And there is a massive problem with the step
between not enough income to pay any income
tax and the much higher flat rate.

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

That makes no sense either with those who
have a very high cost of producing their
income like quite a bit of small business.
The high cost of producing that income
has to be a deduction so that it is only
net income which is taxed.

And it is impossible to only tax what is
real income with investments which have
capital gain which is in fact just inflation.

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,

Could be greatly simplified and be about 10 lines on a sheet of paper.

But would be grossly unfair to those on lower incomes.

There is a reason that no jurisdiction world
wide has a universal flat rate income tax

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:21:59 +1100, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Makes sense

No it does not.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you clincally insane obnoxious senile
troll from Oz?

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 15:57:56 +1100, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:



Makes sense

No it does not.

With some modification it does.

No

LOL In auto-contradicting mode again, you clinically insane sociopathic
senile asshole from Oz?

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

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


There is a reason that no jurisdiction world
wide has a universal flat rate income tax

Most are far simpler than the US tax code.

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.


--
Dan Espen

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 9:14:32 PM UTC-4, Turd Ferguson wrote:
The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it has
so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are being
taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross domestic
product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1). Our present
income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or about 10% of our
nations income (1). But IRS statistics show that the middel income
workers pay average tax return contribution rate is 18% and a marginal
tax rate of 28% of taxable income(2). This means that our present tax
base (taxable income) is slightly less than half of total income or GDP.
Middle income wage earners are paying 18% instead of 10.2% so that
others can pay nothing, zip, zero! If all income producing sources were
taxed at a single unitary tax rate of 10% the federal government would
collect more in taxes than it does now and every one would pay his fair
share of taxes. The Ten Percent Flat Tax would be much easier to
administer because all income producing business transactions could be
taxed at their source without regard to who the recipient might or might
not be. At the end of the year, no private citizen would ever again owe
the IRS even one penny more on his wages, his dividends, or his
interest. No citizen who worked for wages would ever again have to file
a federal income tax return. Only those citizens with income property
and businesses would file income tax returns. The IRS would no longer
process over 100 million individual tax returns, but would only have to
process 10 million business returns. Hundreds of thousands of IRS agents
and tax accountants would then be free to live useful and productive lives.
A summary of the ten percent flat tax.

All real income will be taxed once at a flat rate of 10%.
There will be no deductions or exemptions of any kind.
There will be no tax credits of any kind.

And the below in the details, long term capital gains and interest income
get what amounts to a 50% tax exemption. Go figure.





The value of all benefits will be taxed. This includes welfare,
health insurance premiums , pension plan contributions, company cars, etc..
Taxes will be collected by businesses.
Individuals will no longer file income tax returns.·
Interest will be taxed at a rate of 5% in lieu of indexing for
inflation.


Dividends will be taxed at 10% but will be a deductible business
expense.
Short term capital gains will be taxed at 10%
Long term capital gains will be taxed at 5%
Estate taxes will be a flat 10%.

That's a huge tax INCREASE, as most estates today have no federal estate
tax, only estates over $11+ mil.



A tariff of 10% will be imposed on all imports.

So now it's not just an income tax.



The Minimum wage will be increased to compensate for taxation on
minimum wage workers and their loss of welfare benefits.
Health care insurance premiums will count toward meeting the
minimum wage.

Another sign this is half baked. Taxing poor people's healthcare insurance?




Depreciation and interest expense will no longer be allowed.·


Now it's gone totally stupid. Depreciation and interest expenses are as
real as the cost of good sold, labor or the electric bill.



Part A. Taxes on personal income

1. Wages and earned income will be taxed at a flat rate of 10 % starting
with the first dollar earned. The taxes will be withheld from the
workers paycheck and the money remitted to the IRS just as is done
today. A W-2 form will be supplied to the worker but since all taxes due
will have been paid, the worker need not file an income tax report.

2.Health insurance premiums paid by the employer will be subject to the
10% tax. The employer will deduct 10% of the premium value paid on the
workers behalf from the employees pay check. The taxes will be remitted
by the employer to the IRS.

3 Pension plan premiums paid by the employer will be subject to the 10%
tax. The employer will deduct 10% of the premium value paid on the
workers behalf from the employees pay check. The taxes will be remitted
by the employer to the IRS.


Another half baked idea. Taxing people today on money they will not
see for twenty or fifty years.




4.Company Cars, housing allowances, and other company perks will be
subject to the 10% tax. The employer will deduct 10% of the value of
such perks from the workers pay check. The taxes will be remitted by the
employer to the IRS.

5. Interest received from banks, savings and loans, government bonds and
other financial instruments will be subject to a 5% tax. The financial
institution will deduct 5% from all interest distributions and remit the
tax to the IRS. The tax rate of 5% instead of 10% is imposed because
inflation reduces the value of savings by about ½ the going interest rate.

6 Dividends received on corporate stocks will be taxed at 10%. The
corporation will withhold 10% from all dividend distributions and remit
the tax to the IRS. Dividends will be a deductible business expense. We
will no longer have double taxation of dividends.

7. Short Term Capital Gains will be taxed at a rate of 10%. The
brokerage house or the escrow department will remit 10% of the short
term capital gains on the sale or exchange of property to the IRS. Short
term is any asset held less than seven years.

8. Long term capital gains will be taxed at a rate of 5%. The brokerage
house or the escrow department will remit 5% of the long term capital
gain on the sale or exchange of property to the IRS. We define "Long
Term" as any asset held for seven years or longer. The tax rate on long
term capital gains is 5% to compensate for the devaluation of the dollar
due to ever present inflation. A more precise alternative would be to
index all capital assets for inflation. But I believe that the 5%
rate after seven years accomplishes this objective and is much less
subject to debate.

9. No deduction or tax credit of any kind will be allowed for any
interest paid for any reason or purpose.

Some kind of fetish here and total misunderstanding of interest





10. No other deductions or exemption will be allowed for any reason.

11. Estate taxes will be a flat 10%. There will be no exemptions or
deductions of any kind. This tax will start at the first penny of
inheritance.

Nice, so a son inherits the family home worth $300K and now he suddenly
owes $30K in tax? How is he supposed to pay that? Or a farmer's children
inherit a farm, they have to sell it to pay the tax. This is as stupid as
it gets.




Part B . Taxes on business

1. All net profits will be subject to a 10% tax.

2. Interest paid will no longer be a deductible expense. Companies built
with sweat equity and money equity will no longer suffer discrimination
relative to companies built on borrowed money.

Like I said, someone here has an interest fetish.





3. Depreciation will no longer be a deductible expense.

And an ignorance of basic accounting.



4. Losses will no longer be carried forward. Profits will be determined
year to year.

Totally unfair and illogical. If a business has an extraordinary event
that results in a loss, they should be allowed to carry it forward.




5. Losses will no longer be transferred from one company to another.

6. Dividends paid out will be a deductible expense. No more double
taxation of dividends.

7. Executive salaries. Any salary in excess of 200,000 dollar per year (
the salary of the president of the United States) will be declared
excessive. That portion of the salary in excess of 200,000 dollars

Another example of how ignorant and half-baked this is. The president's
salary is twice that.


will
be subject to a 10% surcharge

So again, it's not a flat tax, there are exemptions, surcharges.



and paid by the corporation. Some may
argue that an excessive salary tax is not fair or flat. But there is a
real problem with CEO and other high paid executives taking obscene
salaries and perks while the owners of the companies, the stock holders
get next to nothing in dividends. Let these wizz kids get their extra
bonus out of dividends like the owners and investors in the companies.

8. Company Cars. The value of any company car provided to an employee by
a company will be subject to a 10% tax.

The personal use of a company vehicle is already taxed.


This tax will be withheld from
the employees pay check and the tax remitted to the IRS by the company.
The same rule shall apply to any other company perk like company
housing, paid vacation trips, or any other perk.
Part C. Taxes on the Working Poor.

federal transfer payments and tax forgiveness of low wage workers amount
to a negative income tax in the order of 150 billion dollare each year.
This loss to the federal treasury is almost 20% of total income tax
revenues. If this drain on our treasury is not stopped we will not be
able to have a balanced budget

Typical. The thought of a balanced budget only comes up when it comes
to reducing payments to the poor.




with a 10% flat tax but would have to
increase the rate to about 13%. We are not talking about unemployed
here. We are talking about people working for substandard wages. If all
our workers earned a living wage these government handouts would be
unnecessary.

1.The ten percent income tax shall be levied on all earned income
no matter how small. The income tax shall start with the first penny
earned and will finish with the last penny earned.
We acknowledge that the present minimum wage is not a living wage
and that we cannot expect any worker making the present minimum wage to
pay this tax. But we must insist that all citizens pay their fair share
to support our government. For this reason we demand that the minimum
wage be increased by $0.50 per hour each year over the next five years
as this ten percent flat tax is instituted.
For the first year that the flat tax is instituted the minimum wage
increase will just keep up with the tax increase so the minimum wage
worker will just break even. For that reason we will not start
dismantling the earned income credits until the third year.
All earned income tax credits will be completely phased out over
the third, fourth and fifth year of the ten percent flat tax plan.
All food stamps and housing assistance for the working poor will be
phased out over the first five years of the flat tax plan.

Part D. Tariffs and Most Favored Nations

All work has dignity and therefore all workers deserve a living wage. We
must recognize that we live in a global economy where transport over
intercontinental distances is no longer expensive. We must also
recognize that in many countries child labor, slave labor, and prison
labor are commonplace. These same countries have very low or non
existent minimum wage laws, fair labor standards, and no workman
compensation system. If our companies have to compete in a price war
with competitors in these countries we will loose even more good jobs.
Our workers need protection from these unfair competitors. We do not
mean to stifle honest competition but we do need to even the playing field.

1. All nations having most favored nation trading status with the United
States will have a flat Tariff of 10% levied on all goods of any kind
and description coming into our country.

And they will retaliate with a tariff of 10% on our goods.




2. No nation will be granted most favored nation status if its negative
trade balance with the United States exceeds ten percent in the past
calendar year.

Exceeds ten percent of what?



Can you spell half-baked?

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.

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.

--
Dan Espen

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:49:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/14/2020 10:21 PM, %% wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/14/2020 9:14 PM, Turd Ferguson wrote:

The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it
has so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are
being taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross
domestic product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1).
Our present income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or
about 10% of our nations income (1).

Steve?Â* Steve Forbes, is that you?Â* Still trying?

Makes sense

No it does not.



With some modification it does. IIRC the original Forbes plan had some
minimum before you paid anything. You can have it graduated to a
certain income level but eliminate all the other deductions. Could be
greatly simplified and be about 10 lines on a sheet of paper.

Forbes also made that tax around 19% after that threshold to get to
being revenue neutral. I think the OP is talking about a VAT tho.

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? That is how we got to this point.

The entire tax code has to be tossed. Start with what income is
taxable. Get rid of loopholes and many deductions. Should there be a
national sales tax? VAT tax? Don't even think about a wealth tax.

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

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 10/14/2020 9:14 PM, Turd Ferguson wrote:

The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it has
so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are being
taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross domestic
product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1). Our present
income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or about 10% of our
nations income (1).

Steve? Steve Forbes, is that you? Still trying?

Don't pay attention to the Turd. He knows not of what he writes.

Everybody in the USA pays taxes. Every day. Sales taxes, property
taxes (as part of rent if renting), excise taxes, communication taxes,
cable taxes, fuel taxes, and so forth.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
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.

We'll see,.,,

Owning a high value property is not income.

The capital gain on it is if there
are no exemptions or deductions.

You can't spend it, it is just a paper higher value. Tax would be on
wages. not holdings.

That wont work either because the capital gain
on stocks which dont pay a dividend wouldnt
be taxed and that is again grossly unfair. Same
with real estate where some choose to produce
their income from the capital gain, not the rent.

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?

Thats not a flat tax, thats a normal income tax with just
one tax rate when the income is over a particular value.
And there is a massive problem when the income increases
so you are just over the income at which you have to pay
income tax and have to do that on your entire income.

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

Thats not a flat tax, thats a normal income tax with just
one tax rate when the income is over a particular value.

There is a reason that no jurisdiction world
wide has a universal flat rate income tax

Most are far simpler than the US tax code.

Irrelevant to whether a flat rate income tax is viable.
And you are wrong about the far simpler claim too.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
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.

Thats automatic when the flat rate is much lower
than the net rate that they currently pay. And you
savagely penalise those who dont currently pay
any federal income tax, HALF the tax payers.

That is the advantage is you eliminate a lot of deductions that only the
wealthy take advantage of.

Thats bull**** too. There arent any that only the
wealthy take advantage of. The reason that HALF
pay no federal income tax is because they are
taking advantage of the deductions available
to them and it isnt the wealthy doing that either.

A complete restructuring of the crappy code as now written with lots of
loopholes.

And a much worse result for everyone
except those on very high incomes.

And an utterly obscene result for those on the
lowest income and those that inherit properly
or businesses. They will mostly have to sell up
what the inherited to pay the income tax.

And that will have to be a lot more than 10%
to recover as much as is currently collected.

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

That isnt the only downside.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 08:51:18 -0400, 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.


You must be a very well off retiree.
Even at $100,000 a year, righteous bucks in retirement your tax would
only be ~11% taking the standard deduction and that does not include
the 15% deduction you get for SS.
If your pension and SS is over $100k, stop bitching and pay your tax.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 06:54:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 9:14:32 PM UTC-4, Turd Ferguson wrote:
The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it has
so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are being
taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross domestic
product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1). Our present
income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or about 10% of our
nations income (1). But IRS statistics show that the middel income
workers pay average tax return contribution rate is 18% and a marginal
tax rate of 28% of taxable income(2). This means that our present tax
base (taxable income) is slightly less than half of total income or GDP.
Middle income wage earners are paying 18% instead of 10.2% so that
others can pay nothing, zip, zero! If all income producing sources were
taxed at a single unitary tax rate of 10% the federal government would
collect more in taxes than it does now and every one would pay his fair
share of taxes. The Ten Percent Flat Tax would be much easier to
administer because all income producing business transactions could be
taxed at their source without regard to who the recipient might or might
not be. At the end of the year, no private citizen would ever again owe
the IRS even one penny more on his wages, his dividends, or his
interest. No citizen who worked for wages would ever again have to file
a federal income tax return. Only those citizens with income property
and businesses would file income tax returns. The IRS would no longer
process over 100 million individual tax returns, but would only have to
process 10 million business returns. Hundreds of thousands of IRS agents
and tax accountants would then be free to live useful and productive lives.
A summary of the ten percent flat tax.

All real income will be taxed once at a flat rate of 10%.
There will be no deductions or exemptions of any kind.
There will be no tax credits of any kind.

And the below in the details, long term capital gains and interest income
get what amounts to a 50% tax exemption. Go figure.


Since Cap Gains are only 15% now and for most mortals dividends are
free, it is not much change. That is particularly true of the Forbes
plan that set the rate around 19%.


Most of this 10% plan is just silly.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:43:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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? That is how we got to this point.

The entire tax code has to be tossed. Start with what income is
taxable. Get rid of loopholes and many deductions. Should there be a
national sales tax? VAT tax? Don't even think about a wealth tax.

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

True. Every deduction and loophole has a lobby behind it throwing
money at congress to keep it going. Love it or hate it the 1986 tax
cut also closed a whole lot of loopholes. They ended up being somewhat
revenue neutral and depending on where their money was, the rich might
have actually paid more. Unfortunately most of the cuts since have not
tried to do that. The loopholes remain and some got bigger.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 16:46:25 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 10/14/2020 9:14 PM, Turd Ferguson wrote:

The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it has
so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are being
taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross domestic
product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1). Our present
income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or about 10% of our
nations income (1).

Steve? Steve Forbes, is that you? Still trying?

Don't pay attention to the Turd. He knows not of what he writes.

Everybody in the USA pays taxes. Every day. Sales taxes, property
taxes (as part of rent if renting), excise taxes, communication taxes,
cable taxes, fuel taxes, and so forth.


True, we spend way too much time obsessing on the income tax while the
hidden taxes keep chewing away at our money.
One of the most egregious is that corporate tax you liberals love.
That shows up in the prices everyone pays, including the very poor. It
is just a VAT.

On 10/15/2020 1:42 PM, %% wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message


Owning a high value property is not income.

The capital gain on it is if there
are no exemptions or deductions.

If you are living in a house and it triples in value how much tax do you
have to pay? $0 unless you sell it and not buy a new house. My last
two houses triples and I've not paid a penny yet. I won't live long
enough for this one to do that.





That wont work either because the capital gain
on stocks which dont pay a dividend wouldnt
be taxed and that is again grossly unfair. Same
with real estate where some choose to produce
their income from the capital gain, not the rent.

If we are rewrite the tax code that can be fixed.


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.Â* No tax on the first $xxx.Â* See how simple?

Thats not a flat tax, thats a normal income tax with just
one tax rate when the income is over a particular value.
And there is a massive problem when the income increases
so you are just over the income at which you have to pay
income tax and have to do that on your entire income.

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

Thats not a flat tax, thats a normal income tax with just
one tax rate when the income is over a particular value.

What we have is far from normal. While not a true flat tax with some
graduations a lot of crap can be cut out and plain eliminated. Joe
Sixpack should not pay more than Ricky Rich.

On 10/15/2020 2:13 PM, %% wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

A complete restructuring of the crappy code as now written with lots
of loopholes.

And a much worse result for everyone
except those on very high incomes.

And an utterly obscene result for those on the
lowest income and those that inherit properly
or businesses. They will mostly have to sell up
what the inherited to pay the income tax.


So by rewriting the tax code it is a penalty for the working poor? You
are making claims on a blank sheet of paper, not a proposed tax. I
thought you smarter than that.

Make that claim when you see a thought out draft of the proposal.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 23:49:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/14/2020 10:21 PM, %% wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/14/2020 9:14 PM, Turd Ferguson wrote:

The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it
has so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are
being taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross
domestic product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1).
Our present income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or
about 10% of our nations income (1).

Steve? Steve Forbes, is that you? Still trying?

Makes sense

No it does not.

`

With some modification it does. IIRC the original Forbes plan had some
minimum before you paid anything. You can have it graduated to a
certain income level but eliminate all the other deductions. Could be
greatly simplified and be about 10 lines on a sheet of paper.

Forbes also made that tax around 19% after
that threshold to get to being revenue neutral.

And even that wouldnt be enough.

I think the OP is talking about a VAT tho.

Nope, a VAT applies to sales, not income.

But the OP utterly mangled his story by including import tariffs too.

Ed Pawlowski writes:

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? That is how we got to this point.

The entire tax code has to be tossed. Start with what income is
taxable. Get rid of loopholes and many deductions. Should there be a
national sales tax? VAT tax? Don't even think about a wealth tax.

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

You claim that the current tax code is so bad, it "must be tossed".

Too high? Too complex? Unfair?

Surely you can't think taxes are too high? They've been lowered
way down into incredible deficit land already.

Somehow, all these years I've been paying my taxes not
noticing a problem. With the advent of computer assisted filing,
it's pretty easy. Back when I kept paper files and mailed in my
return it wasn't that hard either.

Fairness is a goal that can never be achieved. Trying to be
fair is one of the reasons our tax code is so complex.

--
Dan Espen

"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.

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 10/14/2020 9:14 PM, Turd Ferguson wrote:

The Ten Percent Flat Tax

The present tax system is unfair.

The most serious fault with our present income tax system is that it has
so grossly unfair. Only half of our nations income sources are being
taxed so that the other half pays no taxes whatever. Our gross domestic
product (GDP) was over 7.2 trillion dollars in 1996 .(1). Our present
income tax system collects only 735 billion dollars or about 10% of our
nations income (1).

Steve? Steve Forbes, is that you? Still trying?

Don't pay attention to the Turd. He knows not of what he writes.

Everybody in the USA pays taxes. Every day.

Not everyone does, most obviously with those who grow
their own food and don’t own the land they grow it on,
have someone who lets them use their land for that and
lives like the amish, not using any technology.

Sales taxes, property taxes (as part of rent if renting),

Not everyone either owns or rents.

excise taxes,

Not everyone consumes what has excuse taxes.

communication taxes,

Not everyone pays to communicate.

cable taxes, fuel taxes, and so forth.

Ditto.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/15/2020 1:42 PM, %% wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message


Owning a high value property is not income.

The capital gain on it is if there
are no exemptions or deductions.

If you are living in a house and it triples in value how much tax do you
have to pay? $0 unless you sell it and not buy a new house.

Thats wrong with your stupid flat tax with no loopholes and no deductions.
The increase in value would be income in the year it happens.

My last two houses triples and I've not paid a penny yet. I won't live
long enough for this one to do that.

That the current system, not the proposed new flat rate system.

That wont work either because the capital gain
on stocks which dont pay a dividend wouldnt
be taxed and that is again grossly unfair. Same
with real estate where some choose to produce
their income from the capital gain, not the rent.

If we are rewrite the tax code that can be fixed.

Not with the flat rate scheme with no loopholes and
no deductions, that is income in the year it occurs.

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?

Thats not a flat tax, thats a normal income tax with just
one tax rate when the income is over a particular value.
And there is a massive problem when the income increases
so you are just over the income at which you have to pay
income tax and have to do that on your entire income.

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

Thats not a flat tax, thats a normal income tax with just
one tax rate when the income is over a particular value.

What we have is far from normal.

Its how the entire modern first and second world does income tax.

While not a true flat tax with some graduations a lot of crap can be cut
out and plain eliminated.

Thats changing the current income tax system, not a flat tax.

Joe Sixpack should not pay more than Ricky Rich.

Those on very high professional incomes shouldnt
be paying far less than they currently do and Joe
Sixpack who is currently paying no federal income
tax shouldnt be paying 30% of his current income in tax.

And those who inherit substantial property or businesses should
have to sell those to pay the 30% tax in the year they inherit.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/15/2020 2:13 PM, %% wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

A complete restructuring of the crappy code as now written with lots of
loopholes.

And a much worse result for everyone
except those on very high incomes.

And an utterly obscene result for those on the
lowest income and those that inherit properly
or businesses. They will mostly have to sell up
what the inherited to pay the income tax.

So by rewriting the tax code it is a penalty for the working poor?

Not just the working poor, the bottom HALF of taxpayers
who currently pay no federal income tax.

And we aren't discussing rewriting the tax code,
we are discussing a FLAT RATE INCOME TAX.

You are making claims on a blank sheet of paper, not a proposed tax.

Nope, pointing out the problems and gross
inequities with the proposed flat rate income tax.

I thought you smarter than that.

Thats dishonest.

Make that claim when you see a thought out draft of the proposal.

We are discussing a particular very poorly
thought out proposal, a flat rate income tax.

Yes, the current tax regime can be tweaked or
even discarded completely, but it makes no
sense at all to replace the current income tax
regime with a very simple flat rate income tax
with no deductions or exceptions on what is
income or even with a flat rate scheme with
lots of deductions and exceptions either.

A progressive income tax scheme with sensible deductions
and exceptions is a lot fairer and more equitable.

But it makes no sense for HALF the taxpayers to
pay no federal income tax. No one else world wide
has such a terminally stupid approach to income tax.

On 10/15/2020 3:59 PM, %% wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message


So by rewriting the tax code it is a penalty for the working poor?

Not just the working poor, the bottom HALF of taxpayers
who currently pay no federal income tax.

And we aren't discussing rewriting the tax code,
we are discussing a FLAT RATE INCOME TAX.

We in order to initiate that you have to rewrite the code. Essentially
toss it and start over

On 10/15/2020 2:49 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Ed Pawlowski writes:



You claim that the current tax code is so bad, it "must be tossed".

Too high? Too complex? Unfair?

Surely you can't think taxes are too high? They've been lowered
way down into incredible deficit land already.

Somehow, all these years I've been paying my taxes not
noticing a problem. With the advent of computer assisted filing,
it's pretty easy. Back when I kept paper files and mailed in my
return it wasn't that hard either.

Fairness is a goal that can never be achieved. Trying to be
fair is one of the reasons our tax code is so complex.


Total fairness, no. Should Trump, or someone like him, only pay $750?
Too high? For some, others too low
Too complex? Why do some people need accountants and tax lawyers?
Unfair? For some, yes.

I have no complaints about the tax I pay and like you, easy to file. My
friend though, pays $5000 a year for an accountant.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/15/2020 3:59 PM, %% wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message


So by rewriting the tax code it is a penalty for the working poor?

Not just the working poor, the bottom HALF of taxpayers
who currently pay no federal income tax.

And we aren't discussing rewriting the tax code,
we are discussing a FLAT RATE INCOME TAX.

We in order to initiate that you have to rewrite the code. Essentially
toss it and start over

Yes, and it would be completely stupid, and completely
inequitable to rewrite the tax code to have a flat rate
inco9me tax with no deductions and no exceptions.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/15/2020 2:49 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Ed Pawlowski writes:



You claim that the current tax code is so bad, it "must be tossed".

Too high? Too complex? Unfair?

Surely you can't think taxes are too high? They've been lowered
way down into incredible deficit land already.

Somehow, all these years I've been paying my taxes not
noticing a problem. With the advent of computer assisted filing,
it's pretty easy. Back when I kept paper files and mailed in my
return it wasn't that hard either.

Fairness is a goal that can never be achieved. Trying to be
fair is one of the reasons our tax code is so complex.


Total fairness, no. Should Trump, or someone like him, only pay $750?
Too high? For some, others too low
Too complex? Why do some people need accountants and tax lawyers?
Unfair? For some, yes.

I have no complaints about the tax I pay and like you, easy to file. My
friend though, pays $5000 a year for an accountant.

And it would be completely stupid and completely
inequitable to dump the entire tax code and have
a flat tax code with no exceptions and no deductions
just to allow taxpayers to have a much simpler tax return.

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 12:43:41 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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? That is how we got to this point.

The entire tax code has to be tossed. Start with what income is
taxable. Get rid of loopholes and many deductions. Should there be a
national sales tax? VAT tax? Don't even think about a wealth tax.

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

A huge part of that problem is that politicians want a complex tax code.
The Democrats especially love the idea of a fictional high tax rate, then
they give one tax break after another, doling them out as the campaign dollars
role in. If we had a simple tax system, with a reasonable rate, maybe two
brackets, 15%, 25%, politicians of both parties couldn't be using their
power to give breaks in exchange for $$$.

On 10/15/2020 07:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

It's bad enough that the SSI deductions are capped.

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

I'm not seeing a downside.

On 10/15/2020 10:43 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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? That is how we got to this point.

The entire tax code has to be tossed. Start with what income is
taxable. Get rid of loopholes and many deductions. Should there be a
national sales tax? VAT tax? Don't even think about a wealth tax.


Sales and VAT taxes are inherently regressive.

On 10/15/2020 03:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/15/2020 2:49 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Ed Pawlowski writes:



You claim that the current tax code is so bad, it "must be tossed".

Too high? Too complex? Unfair?

Surely you can't think taxes are too high? They've been lowered
way down into incredible deficit land already.

Somehow, all these years I've been paying my taxes not
noticing a problem. With the advent of computer assisted filing,
it's pretty easy. Back when I kept paper files and mailed in my
return it wasn't that hard either.

Fairness is a goal that can never be achieved. Trying to be
fair is one of the reasons our tax code is so complex.


Total fairness, no. Should Trump, or someone like him, only pay $750?
Too high? For some, others too low
Too complex? Why do some people need accountants and tax lawyers?
Unfair? For some, yes.

I have no complaints about the tax I pay and like you, easy to file. My
friend though, pays $5000 a year for an accountant.

I grumble to myself some rainy Sunday afternoon when I'm doing the
paperwork. I throw the envelopes into the mailbox on Monday and it's all
behind me.

On 10/15/2020 04:24 PM, %% wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 10/15/2020 2:49 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Ed Pawlowski writes:



You claim that the current tax code is so bad, it "must be tossed".

Too high? Too complex? Unfair?

Surely you can't think taxes are too high? They've been lowered
way down into incredible deficit land already.

Somehow, all these years I've been paying my taxes not
noticing a problem. With the advent of computer assisted filing,
it's pretty easy. Back when I kept paper files and mailed in my
return it wasn't that hard either.

Fairness is a goal that can never be achieved. Trying to be
fair is one of the reasons our tax code is so complex.


Total fairness, no. Should Trump, or someone like him, only pay $750?
Too high? For some, others too low
Too complex? Why do some people need accountants and tax lawyers?
Unfair? For some, yes.

I have no complaints about the tax I pay and like you, easy to file.
My friend though, pays $5000 a year for an accountant.

And it would be completely stupid and completely
inequitable to dump the entire tax code and have
a flat tax code with no exceptions and no deductions
just to allow taxpayers to have a much simpler tax return.

True, but the tax forms do need work. I'm a programmer and spend my days
working through some complex segments of code. My tax return is very
uncomplicated but as I try to walk through the instructions on what to
do with the entry on line 18a I find myself wondering what ****ing moron
wrote the worksheet.

Actually I could streamline the process and either go for the maximum
liability or the minimum deduction because that's where I'll wind up
after going through the 18 step calculation.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 12:43:41 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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? That is how we got to this point.

The entire tax code has to be tossed. Start with what income is
taxable. Get rid of loopholes and many deductions. Should there be a
national sales tax? VAT tax? Don't even think about a wealth tax.

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

A huge part of that problem is that politicians want a complex tax code.
The Democrats especially love the idea of a fictional high tax rate, then
they give one tax break after another, doling them out as the campaign
dollars
role in. If we had a simple tax system, with a reasonable rate, maybe two
brackets, 15%, 25%, politicians of both parties couldn't be using their
power to give breaks in exchange for $$$.

Corse they would with what is deductable.