It really is easy to put a value on assets. Any appraiser can value a painting or a house. And pretending #163 is a real life example is silly. You left out capital gains, dividends, stock options, inheritance and about a billion other sources of income. But I do agree a 23% tax on all inheritance would be a good change in the tax law.
How silly! The only appraisal that counts is the one made by a buyer and seller when an exchange takes place. Then you obviously didn't read or didn't understand my post #163. It was simply an explanation of the effect of application of a fair flat tax system based upon the fact that we seem to have accepted a 40 hour week as being adequate for everyone to acquire their needs and wants. Essentially what I was showing is that a year being an average of 365.25 days, accounting for leap years, results in producing a 2087 hour work year with a 40 hour work week. In the example, which would only become real life if put to use, assuming a 23% tax would acquire the necessary revenue to fund all government spending, that same 23% would be applied to those who are unemployed requiring them to provide ( 23% of 2087hours ) or 480 hours of government service each year in return for the benefits government provides them resulting from the labours of others. A small price to pay to sustain ones life wouldn't you say? No I did not, but immediately I would not tax inheritance at all unless it was to a non-blood related person. Any cash received each year, capital gains, dividends, interest, etc. would be taxed at the same rate. When spendable money flows it becomes taxed. Selling something, anything, for cash money would require paying a tax on the profit produced. Also a single tax rate would greatly simplify tax collection, reducing the costs, record keeping and time spent on taxing some forms of income such as bank interest, which could then easily be taxed at the source instead of each individual account holder having to report and pay taxes individually. The total interest a bank distributes to all account holders would simply be taxed at 23% reducing each individual account distribution by 23%, all done in a program. Do you still have complaints?
I'm a firm supporter of repealing the 16th amendment, and the 17th too. The founders, in my opinion, devised the fairest possible method of taxing the population to provide for the enumerated spending needs of the Federal government. With a $4,000,000,000,000 Federal budget, California the most populous State would be assessed a tax bill of $482,649,320,000.00 while Wyoming our least populous State would be assessed $7,304,733,883.13 as their share. And to be fair, since the Federal government is spending about 4% of the GDP on welfare assistance, not including Medicare/Social Security California would have their tax bill reduced by $86,794,266,688.80 and Wyoming would have its tax bill reduced by $1,313,601,814.80 using $18,819,000,000,000 as an example of the GDP. Each State would receive the same tax deduction proportionate to their population of the whole, which in the example would equate to $2,329.80 per person and be free to redistribute that and any other funding acquired from within the State to those in need of assistance.
I have no complaints although hard to figure out why you would exempt inheritance. That is certainly income. Next thing you know you are going to start taxing all sorts of different incomes at different rates and there goes the flat tax. How about tax free municipal bonds? Gifts? Social security.
I didn't exempt inheritance completely. Why would you think that I would start taxing incomes at different rates? The intent is to tax everyone, employed or unemployed, equally with the percentage rate applied to income or a standard work years hours of labour. A tax free municipal bond would no longer be a tax free municipal bond if it were to be taxed. Gifts might be something else. Perhaps only gifts to family members should be exempt from tax? Social Security, I would exempt. Ideally, I would prefer repealing the 16th amendment with the Federal government taxing the States, but as long as the Federal government continues to tax individuals directly it should be done at a single flat rate. State and local governments should have more leeway in how they tax their inhabitants and spend/redistribute the revenues.
why would you tax someone's labor? I wouldn't tax income at all. Tax transactions directly as the founders intended
Those who have NO earned income would pay NO taxes at all. Yes, taxes are applied on money being spent, but if the money was not earned by the spender he/she is not paying the tax but those who actually earned the money they were given is paying the tax. Welfare should be a workfare system, and if working people are paying x% tax on their income received as a result of working a 40 hour week, or average 2087 hours each year, then the welfare recipients who are physically/mentally capable of performing labour should be providing x% of a work years labour as their fair share for the benefits they are receiving. The Federal government should treat everyone equally, rich, poor, employed, unemployed. I would however prefer repealing the 16th and 17th amendments and require the Federal government to tax the States rather than individuals directly, allowing the States and local governments to acquire their share of tax revenue to the Federal government by an income, consumption, or some other form of tax which the States citizens would approve of. Did you read my post #278 directed to you?
Because, through labour, there is a means to integrate tax and benefit systems while ensuring progressivity. This is efficient (as we can eliminate poverty and unemployment traps) while also ensuring equity gain.
Efficiency and equity are arbitrary terms, defined by the elite corporatists and their academic whores
It makes them coherent and free from left/right manipulation. I appreciate Pareto Efficiency, but I'm no fan of Vilfredo!
OK why would you exempt inheritance to blood related family members. It is still income to them although admittedly unearned. And why would you exempt SS. You are going down the slippery slope of classifying different types of income differently for tax purposes which is the system we already have. And why would you give states more leeway that the Federal government?
Thanks for making me think about that, I should have included any legally adopted along with blood related family members. Family is the basic unit from which societies are built, and along with 'self', the initial source of all responsibilities. Do we need to tax SS? Like food stamps or other government social program spending it is taxed when spent. I don't foresee any slippery slope, although I'm sure there is NO tax plan at all that would ever be universally accepted without some minor complaints. What I have been trying to propose would greatly simplify taxation of the individual members of the population if that is to be retained as a rightful responsibility the Federal government. Admittedly, I would much prefer repeal of the 16th amendment as the best corrective action for taxation, and the 17th amendment as the best corrective action for getting Federal spending under control.
Well if it is so obvious why are you unable to actually give your reasons? You are not going to try the old nonsense that the state government is more responsive to the voters are you?
The old tax symplification nonsense doesn't really cut it. For most people the current income tax might take as much time as watching one football game or maybe two. And you have yet to explain your rational for not taxing inheritance as income. And since you have now stated your real gosl which is cutting federal spending perhaps you would be willing to spell out exactly what federal programs you want to cut. You really only have three choices, Medicare, social Security, or military spending.
If only that was all of it, but then there's the 10's of billions of dollars spent on the wages/salaries, benefits, pensions and numerous other expenses for the maintenance and operations of the IRS. But I would tax inheritance as income, provided it is distributed to someone other than a family member. Actually my real goal is individual responsibility, which a side effect of would be reduced Federal, State and local government spending. As to cutting Federal programs, nearly all EXCEPT for the three you proffered would be on the table.
First of course the Republican plan really simplifies almost nothing and so eliminating the IRS is a non starter. Second I assume your goal of individual responsibiliy is code for eliminating programs designed to help people in need. Third you haven't explained how you can not classify inheritance as income. And lastly of course if you don't cut SS. Medicare, or Military Spending younreally don't have much to cut except programs that help people.
Yes, eliminating the IRS would require a much greater change than what is being put forward now. No, but I would move such programs from the Federal to the State governments for both funding and design. It's simply collectively owned by the family members and was taxed when one or more of the family members earned it. Social Security and Medicare are funded by a separate revenue stream and were added to the budget by LBJ, in 1966 I believe. Military spending is the one item that must be under the Federal budget. Yes, I would most definitely cut all assistance programs from the Federal budget, and make them a responsibility of State government, eliminating the cost of operating many Federal agencies, eliminating many jobs duplicated in State government agencies, and allowing each State to fund such programs as they find necessary.
The RP/DP establishment believes a failure to pass a bill and the resulting economic crash will be blamed on Trump. Tax reform is not likely to pass through Congress now. The kind of serious tax reform that would be required to eliminate the IRS would require the defeat of almost every incumbent. The Tax Codes and their enforcement arms are the family jewels of our corrupt bipartisan ruling political class.
Sorry but inheritance is not jointly owned by the family members. Where do you come up with that nonsense? Joint ownership is an entirely different legal term and has nothing to do with inheritance.
I agree, and that is going to take a lot of work as most every incumbent or politicians replacing incumbents keep or acquire their place in our Federal government based primarily on how much bacon they can be seen as bringing home.
