# What Would Your Ideal Tax Plan Look Like? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 20, 2012, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012 "2012-08-20T00:22:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/81 "2012-09-11T15:12:39Z")
> [@BillJ777](#): > > Dear Mr. President, > > Please find below my suggestion for fixing America 's economy. Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan. > You can call it the “Patriotic Retirement Plan”: > > There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 or $2 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations: > > 1. They MUST retire. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed. > > 2. They MUST buy a new AMERICAN Car. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed. > > 3. They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis fixed. > > It can’t get any easier than that!! > > P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes.. > > Mr. President, while you’re at it, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I’ll bet both programs would be fixed pronto! > > * * * > > [easy playdough recipe](http://easyplaydoughrecipe.com) Interesting…You seem to have just skipped over where this $80,000,000,000 is supposed to come from…Typical…We are in debt to our eyeballs (this is what you’re fixing right?), so the first thought, even before step one, is let’s spend 80 trillion dollars to get out of debt. You can’t spend your way out of debt. Imagine you have $60,000 charged up on the old visa…So you decide to go out and just give someone $40,000. Are you out of debt yet? It works like that. Just have the government buy the car and house for them and the net effect then is to give people 1.85 milion, a new american car, and a house to be non-productive members of society. You should be trying to get more productivity out of people, not less and especially not going in the hole 2 million dollars to get zero productivity!!! An old proverb says if you find yourself in the hole, the first step is to stop digging. Works with being in a hole with money too. Stop spending. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/82 "2012-09-11T19:38:03Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > YOU said a sales tax. I said indirect taxes, imports, exports, etc. That would raise even LESS money than a sales tax. > [@](#): > > Like I said before, we paid for government with these for a century or more. So the fact that it has happened fairly negates “we can’t do it with a 20% sales tax”. WHAT!?!?! You’re going back to pre-Civil War periods to justify your ridiculous position on taxation? Yeah I suppose if we are willing to shut down our military ENTIRELY (we had no standing army or much of a navy. You would also have to be willing to default on all of our outstanding debt. Renege on all our obligations to our veterans. Eliminate payouts on social security and medicare. Eliminate federal student loans. Get rid of out nuclear weapons. Get rid of meat inspectors and folks like the FDA and CDC. Basically eliminate government almost entirely. > [@](#): > > Well, no of course I couldn’t make ends meet with a 1 million dollar income if I’m spending 2 million a year. That doesn’t indicate that I have an income problem, though. It does if you can’t reduce your spending below 1.9 million. > [@](#): > > So, my very 1st question was: What stuff are you trying to pay for? The government was run for quite some time without all these taxes. > 2nd was: What is regressive about if I earn 40,000 and you earn 2 x 40,000. On my 40, I pay 4 and on each of your 40s you pay 4, meaning 8. I’m trying to pay for a functioning modern government, what are YOU trying to pay for? > [@](#): > > You didn’t address the whole regressive error you made. Replace the words "its too regressive with “its not progressive enough” if that makes it easier for you to proceed to the rest of the argument. > [@](#): > > Nor did you respond to: I’m sure everyone agrees that the effort to avoid a tax is directly proportional to the rate that the tax is…so, progressivity has everything to do with it. These are not “gotcha’s” non-compliance is always an issue and the solution is more enforcement. > [@](#): > > A progressive tax structure is unfair, plain and simple. No its not, plain and simple. Well, shoot, this IS an easier way to debate, I shoulda thought of it sooner. > [@](#): > > They knew that over 200 years ago…America’s founders rejected the income tax entirely, but when they spoke of taxes they recognized the need for uniformity and equal protection to all citizens. “[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” reads the U.S. Constitution. And 80 years later, in the same spirit, the Fourteenth Amendment promised “equal protection of the laws” to all citizens. > from [thefreemanonline.org](http://thefreemanonline.org) Yeah they also put in a provision for amending the constitution. or are you under the impression that the constitution was perfect when it was first formed? (see references to 3/5th of a person). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/83 "2012-09-11T19:40:07Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > Landlord implies they own something and they are permitting us to do something. It seems you have the boss/servant relationship bassackwards. > I’m sure you meant something like we are like the homeowners and government is our servant to enact our will with what we allow and direct them to do. > Yeah, I’m sure that is what you meant. Probably a bad analogy but in a democracy, the government represents the will of society. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/84 "2012-09-11T19:44:06Z")
10% flat tax under $50,000, 1% additional for every $10,000 up to a maximum of 30%. Allow deducts for health ins, home loans and medical exceeding 10% of income. Maintain dependent deducts. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/85 "2012-09-11T19:46:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not talking about etching in any particular rate, but rather the relationship in rates between the highest bracket and the lowest. As I’ve stated, my preference is not for progressive rates at all, but rather a flat tax or fair tax. But if it’s going to be progressive, let’s just lock it in so if we do really need to raise rates, everyone feels it. This, of course, is a way to make sure that raising taxes is done only when its really necessary. I agree that every9one should bear SOME income tax burden and that the social security tax should have its cap removed. BUT… Taxes should ALWAYS reflect spending on an immediate or deferred basis. If you want lower taxes, then lower spending, don’t just lower taxes and tell people that it will result in higher revenues. This is why I prefer tax and spend Democrats to cut taxes and spend Republicans. The Democrats are more accountable for their spending because they get immediate feedback for their spending because they raise taxes to pay for it. > [@Clothahump](#): > > [It’s already been done.](http://www.FairTax.org) FAIRTAX is a joke. A consumption tax might work but the FAIRTAX version of it, cannot. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/86 "2012-09-12T16:15:12Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > How would you organize taxes if you were in charge of writing the tax code. Be as detailed or as vague as you wish. I would eliminate the federal income tax entirely, along with all privately-owned banks, brokerage houses, insurance companies and any other business that makes more than 60% of its income manipulating capital. All financial institutions would become publicly held non-profits that would be required to capture 5% of revenue for overhead and deliver four fifths of that to the government. Much simpler than taxation, the government would essentially earn its own revenue while at the same time tightening control of the exchanges. Of course, after this, a great many Americans would have to stop pushing pencils and go out and do actual stuff. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/87 "2012-09-13T16:47:36Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That would raise even LESS money than a sales tax. > > That is correct. > > WHAT!?!?! > > You’re going back to pre-Civil War periods to justify your ridiculous position on taxation? > > Well, if you don’t understand or disagree, then just resort to name calling. I was pointing out that it has been done, so your statement that government can’t be run on 20% is false. But, now that you’ve pointed out that it is a ridiculous position, I change my mind and rewrite history so I can agree with you. > > Yeah I suppose if we are willing to shut down our military ENTIRELY (we had no standing army or much of a navy. > > Why is the first spending example you people always come up with is the security of the nation? ALWAYS! Not, we would have to stop trying to take over the mortgage industry, the health care industry, the automobile industry, the education industry, and a whole host of other crap that the federal government isn’t authorized to do…NO,NO, NO…first we have to give up the military. Unreal. Yeah, if I should find myself short one month, the first thing I would do is cancel the alarm system and sell all the doors on the house, but let’s keep the cable tv and cold beer coming. This kind of crap is why it is so frustrating trying, not actually talking to you, but trying to talk to you. > > You would also have to be willing to default on all of our outstanding debt. > > The whole GDP hardly pays the interest. You think that is going to be paid off? Ever? > > Renege on all our obligations to our veterans. > > Yep, again, that is the only thing that could be cut. > > Eliminate payouts on social security and medicare. > > Those actually aren’t authorized. Way back Grover Cleveland time, I think he said nothing in the Constitution grants charity to the federal government…It still doesn’t. > > Eliminate federal student loans. > > I don’t recall seeing that in there either. Enough of this… > > Get rid of out nuclear weapons. > > Get rid of meat inspectors and folks like the FDA and CDC. > > Basically eliminate government almost entirely. > > Basically, yes. Now you’re getting it. > > Well, no of course I couldn’t make ends meet with a 1 million dollar income if I’m spending 2 million a year. That doesn’t indicate that I have an income problem, though. > To which, you replied: > It does if you can’t reduce your spending below 1.9 million. > > So, if I have a 1 million dollar income and I can’t get my spending below 1.9 million, I HAVE AN INCOME PROBLEM??? 1 million dollar income is an income problem? Fuck me running. No wonder we can’t communicate. You are completely unhinged from reality. > > I’m trying to pay for a functioning modern government, what are YOU trying to pay for? > > Just trying to pay for a fuctioning government. > > Replace the words "its too regressive with “its not progressive enough” if that makes it easier for you to proceed to the rest of the argument. > > Me: The idea of a tiered tax rate practically begs for exemptions and exceptions and favors and corruption. 10% with none of that crap is fair, unambiguous, and transparent. > You: Once again patently untrue. Progressivity has little to do with it. > Me: I’m sure everyone agrees that the effort to avoid a tax is directly proportional to the rate that the tax is…so, progressivity has everything to do with it. > > These are not “gotcha’s” non-compliance is always an issue and the solution is more enforcement. > Warren Buffet stated that he paid less in income tax than his secretary. It wasn’t because of non-compliance, so “more enforcement” being the answer is just wrong. > To the rest of us, it is obvious that people would dedicate more energy and resources to avoid having to pay a 70% tax than a 10% tax that everyone else had to pay also. > > No its not, plain and simple. Well, shoot, this IS an easier way to debate, I shoulda thought of it sooner. > > And what’s more it isn’t working. We’ve had a tiered tax system for over 100 yrs. And let’s go back to the Warren Buffet quote. Is this tiered system working? You Libs great commie hero FDR (the evil Roosevelt) proposed a 100% rate over a certain amount. This is fair? Is this what you want? It is called confiscation. > > Yeah they also put in a provision for amending the constitution. or are you under the impression that the constitution was perfect when it was first formed? (see references to 3/5th of a person). What does your reference to 3/5 person have to do with this? Just can’t miss an opportunity to get slavery into the conversation? The point I was making was that the whole idea/concept behind this country was the same laws for everyone, which you seem deadset against. How is it unfair, that if you earn twice as much as me, then you pay twice as much income tax as me? This just totally baffles me how you think that this is unfair. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/88 "2012-09-13T16:50:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Probably a bad analogy but in a democracy, the government represents the will of society. It was a bad analogy and we don’t live in a Democracy. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/89 "2012-09-13T16:52:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I agree that every9one should bear SOME income tax burden and that the social security tax should have its cap removed. BUT… Taxes should ALWAYS reflect spending on an immediate or deferred basis. If you want lower taxes, then lower spending, don’t just lower taxes and tell people that it will result in higher revenues. > > This is why I prefer tax and spend Democrats to cut taxes and spend Republicans. The Democrats are more accountable for their spending because they get immediate feedback for their spending because they raise taxes to pay for it. > > FAIRTAX is a joke. A consumption tax might work but the FAIRTAX version of it, cannot. Shall we take this on faith or are there reasons you believe this? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/90 "2012-09-17T19:49:38Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > What does your reference to 3/5 person have to do with this? Just can’t miss an opportunity to get slavery into the conversation? Hey, you’re the one that used the lack of an income tax in the original version of the constitution as evidence that income taxes are bad. I inject slavery to show that the folks who wrote the constitution weren’t infallible saints. > [@](#): > > The point I was making was that the whole idea/concept behind this country was the same laws for everyone, which you seem deadset against. A progressive incoem tax is applied evenly to everyone. Everyone’s first dollar of income is taxed the same as everyone els’s and everyone’s one millionth dollar of income is taxed the same as everyone elses. Or at least that’s the theory. > [@](#): > > How is it unfair, that if you earn twice as much as me, then you pay twice as much income tax as me? This just totally baffles me how you think that this is unfair. Once again, please google the phrase “marginal utility” the entire concept of progressive taxation is rooted in this concept. > [@mmmbeer](#): > > It was a bad analogy and we don’t live in a Democracy. You must have a very narrow definition of democracy to believe we don’t live in a democracy. A representative democracy is a democracy in its commonly understood sense, the fact that we don’t have referendums on every peice of legislation that comes before congress doesn’t mean we don’t live ina a democracy. > [@mmmbeer](#): > > Shall we take this on faith or are there reasons you believe this? Which part? If you mean FAIRTAX, then the reason I say it wouldn’t work is because a 30% sales tax is not revenue neutral. In other words, we would not collect as much in revenues from a FAIRTAX as we would do right now. The sales tax rate would have to be closer to 45% in order to be revenue neutral (and that doesn’t include any of the revenue increases we need to close the structural budget gap). It imposes a sales tax on the purchase of new homes but not on the purchase of a pre-existing home. It assumes the collection of this sales tax on purchases made by federal, states and municipal government. If you are worried about tax evasion from income taxes, you should get a load of the rate of evasion of sales taxes. You will see people paying for everything with cash all of a sudden. Here is a brief synopsis of the criticism of the FAIRTAX. There are other much longer more involved papers written on the subject bu this one is one of the more easily digestable ones. [http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1998/03/taxes-gale](http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1998/03/taxes-gale) As regressive as the fairtax is compared to our current system (and the fairtax is undisputedly regressive on income compared to the current method while being progressive on consumption, every economist agrees on that), most of the reduced tax burden for the folks at the top end of the income scale do not come from shifting of the burden to the middle and lower end of the income scale but on leakage. Rich folks buying their expensive itens overseas. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/91 "2012-09-20T14:13:10Z")
income taxes are bad… I’m pretty sure that I used 100 years of no income tax to show that they weren’t NEEDED to run the government, not to show the infallibility of the founders. A progressive incoem tax is applied evenly to everyone. Everyone’s first dollar of income is taxed the same as everyone els’s and everyone’s one millionth dollar of income is taxed the same So, 10% taxes for people named mmmbeer and 75% for those who are not could be applied equally also? You are setting a criterion, which applies one rate to one group and a different rate to another group, and it doesn’t matter what the criterion is. Applying the law equally means one rate for all, no matter what group they are in. please google the phrase “marginal utility” the entire concept of progressive taxation is rooted in this concept. To disagree is not to misunderstand, so continuing to point me to google for a definition isn’t going to change my mind. You must have a very narrow definition of democracy to believe we don’t live in a democracy. It isn’t my definition, it is the definition for everyone. That you choose to misuse it has nothing to do with me. the fact that we don’t have referendums on every peice of legislation that comes before congress doesn’t mean we don’t live ina a democracy. Yes, it does. That is why we call what we live in a republic, a democratic republic to be precise. because a 30% sales tax is not revenue neutral. Being revenue neutral is not a disqualifier. That assumes that the level of spending should be kept at it’s current level, so the drunken sailors of the beltway, (no offense meant to real sailors, it’s just an expression) can keep the spending party going. I’m not advocating the FAIRTAX here, though I would support it over this crap we have now. It is a consumption tax. The sales tax rate would have to be closer to 45% in order to be revenue neutral. Pretty sure I read 17% for revenue neutral, though I haven’t checked it myself, not 30 or 45. As regressive as the fairtax is compared to our current system It isn’t regressive. For your and your likeminded pals straight from wikipedia: A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. You can understand progressive means the tax rate goes up as the income goes up, but just can’t grasp that regressive means the rate would come down as the income goes up? Or is that just my narrow-minded definition? Are you suggesting that when you buy a book at barnes and nobles, they are going to charge you a smaller percent sales tax under the fairtax system than they would charge me based on our income levels? That is what regressive means. The term you might be looking for is maybe non-progressive. Just trying to help. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012/92 "2012-09-20T18:37:58Z")
I have been told that the way I’ve been posting is incorrect. Let me try again: > [@mmmbeer](#): > > What does your reference to 3/5 person have to do with this? Just can’t miss an opportunity to get slavery into the conversation? > > > [@](#): > > > > Hey, you’re the one that used the lack of an income tax in the original version of the constitution as evidence that income taxes are bad. I inject slavery to show that the folks who wrote the constitution weren’t infallible saints. > > I’m pretty sure that I used 100 years of no income tax to show that they weren’t NEEDED to run the government, not to show the infallibility of the founders. > > The point I was making was that the whole idea/concept behind this country was the same laws for everyone, which you seem deadset against. > > > [@](#): > > > > A progressive incoem tax is applied evenly to everyone. Everyone’s first dollar of income is taxed the same as everyone els’s and everyone’s one millionth dollar of income is taxed the same as everyone elses. Or at least that’s the theory. > > So, 10% taxes for people named mmmbeer and 75% for those who are not could be applied equally also? You are setting a criterion, which applies one rate to one group and a different rate to another group, and it doesn’t matter what the criterion is. Applying the law equally means one rate for all, no matter what group they are in. > > How is it unfair, that if you earn twice as much as me, then you pay twice as much income tax as me? This just totally baffles me how you think that this is unfair. > [@](#): > > Once again, please google the phrase “marginal utility” the entire concept of progressive taxation is rooted in this concept. To disagree is not to misunderstand, so continuing to point me to google for a definition isn’t going to change my mind. And as was said to the Irishman in Braveheart, “just answer the fookin question” How is it unfair, that if you earn twice as much as me, then you pay twice as much income tax as me? It was a bad analogy and we don’t live in a Democracy. > [@](#): > > You must have a very narrow definition of democracy to believe we don’t live in a democracy. It isn’t my definition, it is the definition for everyone. That you choose to misuse it has nothing to do with me. > [@](#): > > the fact that we don’t have referendums on every peice of legislation that comes before congress doesn’t mean we don’t live ina a democracy. Yes, it does. That is why we call what we live in a republic, a democratic republic to be precise. > [@](#): > > Which part? If you mean FAIRTAX, then the reason I say it wouldn’t work is because a 30% sales tax is not revenue neutral. Being revenue neutral is not a disqualifier. That assumes that the level of spending should be kept at it’s current level, so the drunken sailors of the beltway, (no offense meant to real sailors, it’s just an expression) can keep the spending party going. I’m not advocating the FAIRTAX here, though I would support it over this crap we have now. It is a consumption tax. > [@](#): > > The sales tax rate would have to be closer to 45% in order to be revenue neutral. Pretty sure I read 17% for revenue neutral, though I haven’t checked it myself, not 30 or 45. As regressive as the fairtax is compared to our current system It isn’t regressive. For your and your likeminded pals straight from wikipedia: A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. You can understand progressive means the tax rate goes up as the income goes up, but just can’t grasp that regressive means the rate would come down as the income goes up? Or is that just my narrow-minded definition? Are you suggesting that when you buy a book at barnes and nobles, they are going to charge you a smaller percent sales tax under the fairtax system than they would charge me based on our income levels? That is what regressive means. The term you might be looking for is maybe non-progressive. Just trying to help. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-your-ideal-tax-plan-look-like/632012.md?page=4)