I am a newbie here and a Conservative.

Got ask where did the idea of allowing the government to decide who is rich and how much should we tax them come from?. Who decides what is fair? Who decides who is rich?

How can it be fair for the government to tax one person "X" because they make "X" amount of money and then take it form them and give to someone else. (government programs)

From just the concept of right and wrong, how is it possible people believe this is fair. Unless you basically believe in anything but "WE THE PEOPLE...".

Obviously if you are richer you can afford to pay more in taxes, than someone poorer than you. And the rich of the rich, don't even feel the sting of paying taxes, many of them could by their own tropical island if they wished so, so losing X in taxes doesn't really matter to them. But they will still want tax cuts.

Not very many people get direct government funds, and every citizen has access to government programs. That money that you pay goes to fund these programs and if you use these programs you are essentially using your own money. True that in the US its harder to grasp where the money really goes, but in Finland where the government funds extensive social welfare programs its easier to see. But our taxes show it...40%.

And if that didn't help you, this might. Governments aren't fair, they aren't looking out in interest of fairness. So its tough luck, unless you decide to change nationality.

What??? Govenments aren't looking out for fairness??? If this is the case, why go to the trouble of a having a government, laws, courts, etc.

I agree ckrall that the progressive tax rate is unfair. The argument is that if the tax rate were the same for all, then low income people would not have enough money to support themselves. They just don't make enough money to help fund all of the government services we have. Unfortunately, a "the more you make the more we take" attitude is damaging to everyone. It's a tax on success.

The other thing I hate about the current tax system is that it is way too political. Politicians can use the current system to overtax people, and then offer them "tax-incentives" to reduce what they have to pay (given the taxpayer does whatever it is the politician wants them to do). This amounts to government bribing its citizens. Granted, this is not always a bad thing, but it does leave the door open.

An alternative to the progressive tax that seems to have good "face validity" is a negative income tax. In this scheme, everyone would be given enough money to live on by the govenment (say $10,000), and then would be taxed at a flat rate on all income (e.g. 20%). Thus, if you make $15,000 a year, you would pay $3,000 in taxes, but would get $10,000 from the government for a total net of $22,000 a year. If you make $150,000, you would pay $30,000 in taxes and would also get the $10,000 for a total income of $130,000. This seems fair, and would eliminate the low income problem. We could also do away with most social welfare programs, as well as the costly, convoluted IRS system. It would also close all of the loopholes that exist in the current system.

What do y'all think?

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was a milestone reform of the tax code under Reagan, and written by Sen. Bob Packwood. The revision was two step system was widely heralded as fair, and passed with strong bi-partison support in both the house and senate.

However, the fly in the ointment was the minimum tax provision. This clause said that regardless of deductions, if you made X amount of money you would pay a minimum amount. This meant that wealthy people that had been accustomed to paying a very small percentage of their income in tax all of a sudden had very large tax bills. It was barely a year before lobbyists began gutting the TRA of 1986, and today we are back to where we were.

Even with the massive tax rollbacks for the wealthy, if a minimum tax were implemented today, most big earners would scream like a stuck pig, just as they did in 1986.

As an object lesson, the taxes rates on the wealthy that the Reagan administration considered fair have now been rolled back by around 50%, and yet we still hear all manner of whining and complaining about tax rates. The average percentage paid by corporations today is just half of what it was under Reagan, and averages 6% of earnings. If you work for wages, and unless you make more than $500,000, you can count on the fact that you are are getting hosed, and paying far in excess of your fair share.

Those of us at the higher income levels are able to write off a $99,000 Porsche Cayenne the same year we buy it (for business, wink, wink) we have available to us more leasing schemes that I have room to list, or we can simply generate and earn most of our income through offshore shell companies, leave the money there, and not have it taxed at all. The shell company in turn owns all of our assets for us, but we have use of the houses and use the cars, planes and beach front condos.

This entire issue is a sham, and those in the current administration know it. The 'conservative' strategy is to tax wage earners heavily so the rest of us don't have to pay squat. It works for me, but how well is it working for you? You are being played...

oc

It would seem to close all of the write-off loopholes, and would eliminate the need for an additional "minimum tax" to try to correct for errors in an overly complex tax system.

How so? The tax rate on the top 1% was about 33% in 1986, and it's about 27.5 now -- that's hardly a 50% rollback. Besides, despite the lower tax rate, the wealthy pay a greater share of taxes now than they did in 1986, so I don't see why you feel things were so much better then. In 1986 the top 1% accounted for one quarter of all tax revenue, while in 2001, the top 1% accounted for one third. A similar trend exists for the top 5% bracket, 10%, 25%, and 50%. If anything, it seems lower income workers are paying less money in taxes than they were in 1986.

But it will never fly for the same reason the minimum tax didn't. Those with real money (i.e. real power) will never allow it to happen. They gutted the Republican's Tax Reform Act of 1986 immediately, and within 5yrs it was essentially gone. The same lobbyists would do the same with any system where their principles were forced to pay more tax.

Regarding your post on the IRS's numbers are only part of the story, if you look at the actual percentage of gross income paid, the wealthiest tax payers and corporations are paying less than ever.
http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0302.htm

oc

Taxes should simply be a straight percentage across the board. Government should adjust spending instead of changing how they do taxes. Quit wasting so much. I say we go with something like 20-25% of your income regardless of how much you make, unless you make close to minimum wage, and at that point I think they should not take any. Those of you who have tried to live off of minimum wage would understand that 20% of you check is A LOT!!! when you are only making minimum. Those who are rich like Donald Trump, should have to pay the full amount. Even people who make $10/hr. I dont' know maybe I'm just trying to be too fair. THat's not how politics work. The rich are supposed to get richer and the poor get poorer. Ok, sorry I said anything...

This says it all:

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Check it.

Spork, just because you have more money and can pay more money, does not mean that the government should force you to pay more money.