What Percentage of the US population should pay NO TAX?

[Coda]

The US does not tax everybody. The lowest wage earners in our society pay no taxes yet enjoy the benefits from others. What percentage of the population would you allow to go tax free?

I voted 40%, feeling that this should completely eliminate the poor/lower income folks. The burden will be born by the middle and upper class.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Oh oh, here we go. This ought to be interesting..................

[clinthopson]

Duh,

Everybody pays taxes, not just income taxes but payroll taxes (Social Security, unemployment, state disability), sales taxes, property taxes (the renters pay the landlord's property taxes) and use taxes (entertainment tickets, air travel, etc.).

Graduated income taxes are the fairest way to tax earned income. Sure, the rich pay more, but dammit they're benefited from the work of all those below them.

Of course the wealthy also have many, many loopholes which should be slammed shut.

And I'm speaking as one who is probably in the top 15%.

[Tanager]

Well, at least the poll doesn't attempt to address a highly complex set of issues with a ridiculously simplistic and highly loaded question. Thank God for that.

[Enforcer]

Whatever the percentage you come up with when you divide me by the U.S. population sounds good to me.

Figuring he deserves a tax break more than pretty much everybody else,
Larry

[Coda]

What this poll does do is to get people to think about what is fair. I should have used the qualifier of FEDERAL INCOME TAX only. With that in mind, where do you stand?

[clinthopson]

Originally Posted by Coda

What this poll does do is to get people to think about what is fair. I should have used the qualifier of FEDERAL INCOME TAX only. With that in mind, where do you stand?

70% from the top down.

[GoodSpeak]

What Percentage of the US population should pay NO TAX?

Wouldn't we first need to know the percentage of poor and working poor folks in this country to make any sort of educated guess on this poll relative to how many should/shouldn't be taxed?



And Clint is right....everybody pays taxes in one form or another.

[walto]

There are taxes and there are taxes.

E.g., I think 100% should pay zero income tax, sales tax, VAT, property tax (on bldgs), or tax on most capital gains. OTOH, I think everybody should have to pay a lot more of several other sorts.

[tippy]

I don't think there should be an inheritance tax--it takes all the fun out of inheriting things.

[vibes]

Nobody should be exempt from paying taxes. I think certain taxes should be done away with, like the inheritance tax, but we all have to support government and government programs, and no one should get that for free, unless everyone gets it for free.

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by tippy

I don't think there should be an inheritance tax--it takes all the fun out of inheriting things.

You mean death tax! They tax you for DYING!!!!

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Rob C

You mean death tax! They tax you for DYING!!!!

Yes, they take an arm and a leg. Good news is you don't miss it.

[Dr Dave]

Everybody should pay a 17% flat tax. I don't care whether Steve Forbes promoted it. It's a good idea. In Hong Kong, where this used to be practiced, taxes were not withheld from you paycheck. What you did--and every bank had a program for this--was you had the 17 percent held back by your bank, which put it into some sort of interest-bearing account. Then, when it came time to pay up, you had the money, plus the interest on the money. Maybe 17% is the wrong figure, but I think the Hong Kong system is a good one.

[walto]

If the present system is maintained in all other respects, I like inheritance taxes and think they should be increased. OTOH, iff taxes were done right (as I see it with my all-seeing eye, of course), they ought to be eliminated completely. With H. George, I think taxes should be on privilege only (i.e., not on labor or capital). If the inherited gains weren't actually earned by the deceased person, why the hell shouldn't they (finally) be taxed and taxed hard?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Everybody should pay a 17% flat tax. I don't care whether Steve Forbes promoted it. It's a good idea. In Hong Kong, where this used to be practiced, taxes were not withheld from you paycheck. What you did--and every bank had a program for this--was you had the 17 percent held back by your bank, which put it into some sort of interest-bearing account. Then, when it came time to pay up, you had the money, plus the interest on the money. Maybe 17% is the wrong figure, but I think the Hong Kong system is a good one.

This is the one issue where you, Gary Sisco and I all agree, although as you say we don't know if 17% is the right number.

I don't with Walt about imposing prohibitive inheritance taxes. That would lead to all kids of inheritance tax avoidance. On a moral level, why shouldn't a person have a right to give money away to other individuals. I am making the assumption that Walt also want prohibitive gift taxes.

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by walto

If the inherited gains weren't actually earned by the deceased person, why the hell shouldn't they (finally) be taxed and taxed hard?

Well, my grasp of economics is miniscule at best, but aren't you assuming that (1) the capital actually increased (i.e. there was a "gain") before death? And are you leaving capital gains taxes in place? B/c if you are, then aren't you taxing some gains twice, once when they are inherited, once when they're finally cashed in?

Just curious. I don't know enough to take any real position on this, so shred away.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Gordon, I doubt that Gary agrees with any kind of flat tax structure. I remember him taking me to task for even suggesting such a thing...

[walto]

I'm too lazy to post about this stuff for the eleventeenth time here, so I'll just say again, that if you tax privelege to begin with--instead of labor and capital as we mostly do now--I wouldn't advocate for taxes on inheritance or gifts. But when so many of the richest people get their riches from monopolized natural resources at the expense of other human beings, I have no problem distributing most of this ill-gotten booty before their kids or other beneficiaries get it.

As James H. has correctly noticed out loud, however, I'm basically a religious fanatic about this stuff.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Cantiello

Gordon, I doubt that Gary agrees with any kind of flat tax structure. I remember him taking me to task for even suggesting such a thing...

Jimmy, maybe it was the liquor talking, but Gary punched me in the shoulder at the Colibri Hotel bar when I didn't respond at first when he asked me if I was for a flat tax. I thought he was trying to goad me into arguing with him and I was ready to go to sleep. This was about 2:30 AM. He said he was for it, I think at 15%. I think I said I would support it, probably at a higher level, say 20% coupled with a large personal exemption.

Gary, are you there?

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

I read some stuff recently about charitable donations (from individuals and companies). If someone donates $1000 at a 40% tax rate, they really donate $600 with the state contributing $400 in lost tax revenue. Therefore, the state "funds" the charity of choice of whoever's giving away the money, although in lots of cases, the personal status accrued for donating that money is attributed 100% to the person giving it away. If there's high upper tax rates (as there as been at various times, 70%, 80%), and if lower earners don't get an equivalent discount on donations (which they don't), this gives a vast amount of power to those on very high incomes to control indirect state funding at their own personal whim - denying even the semblance of any democratic control over where that money goes. Assuming there are no other ways to get tax breaks at that level, there's no reason why this couldn't be closed up completely, and the money distributed at local and national levels with much more general public involvement. It allows the state to say that they're not spending much money on things, when in fact they are. Obviously I wouldn't want to see that money going towards defense budgets etc. but it's very dodgy as it stands.

In the UK, we pay a flat 17.5% tax on virtually everything we buy, in addition to 22% rates of income tax on earnings above around GBP5500. Very few people earn less than 5500 per year, although it exempts some people with part-time work and those on state benefit/pensions (just about anyway).

[walto]

Re: the "flat tax": it's a very nice idea if you're rich. The whole point of marginal rates is based on the fact that one dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person--and so does 15% of his/her income. For some, that would mean a diet of carrots and ice cubes.

I agree that it might be fairer than the ridiculous lobby-driven hodgepodge that we have now in the U.S., but that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by walto

Re: the "flat tax": it's a very nice idea if you're rich. The whole point of marginal rates is based on the fact that one dollar means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person--and so does 15% of his/her income. For some, that would mean a diet of carrots and ice cubes.

I agree that it might be fairer than the ridiculous lobby-driven hodgepodge that we have now in the U.S., but that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

No reason you couldn't have a minimum income requirement before hitting a wage-earner up for the tax. And yes, a flat tax is a lot like democracy: It's the least worst idea for taxation.

[walto]

Of course, once you do a minimum income thing, it's not really flat anymore. My point is, if you like income taxes (which I don't), what's wrong with marginal rates--they're fairer (you seem to concur in your post above). If the answer is that marginal rates encourage all this loophole baloney, etc. I still say it's better to just get rid of the baloney and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. As to what/where the incremental rates should be--who the hell knows? But flat isn't better except for being simpler--and while that's something, it's not everything.

But again, I don't care for income taxes in the first place.

[Gary Sisco]

You didn't offer an option to vote for the famous 1% that owns most of the wealth in the US, and who already pay as close to nothing as they can, and their lackeys in DC keep getting them closer to none each year.

I'm all in favor of a flat tax if it's a real flat tax. That is, I'd support a flat tax of, say, 10% on *all* income and gain, from whatever sources, not only wages and salaries, but all sources. Hey, it's only fair. Why should wage earners be the only ones to pay a fair tax?

It'd be a huge reduction for me -- and a huge increase for many others who've been getting off light for generations. Right now, I shell out about 27%, if SS/Medicare is included, which it has to be to be honest these days. Since they use the SS/Medicare deductions as if they are general revenue, then it is in fact an income tax, and a hugely regressive one, given the cap. Indeed, the most regressive one ever, anywhere.

So, yeah. I'd support a flat ten percent on everything, income and gain. Indeed, if instituted and actually applied, there'd be plenty of bread all around for things like SS, which is only in "crisis" because Congress and administration after administration, both parties equally to blame, keep raiding what's legally a trust fund.

If a corporation or small business did the same thing, it would be called a federal felony.

[Gary Sisco]

And think of the army of tax lawyers and bureaucrats who'd have to go out and get real, productive jobs. Hell, anyone can figure out ten percent on their own, even if, like most of the Bush admin, they had to use their fingers to do it.

All of that newly available labor power would drive the economy into new heights of production and growth.

[walto]

Thing is, Gary, when you start including "unrealized" gains along with income (and I agree that kind of stuff mustn't be left out) the lawyers are right back arguing about bases, risk-free rates of return, blah blah. The "flat tax" Dave and Mr. Forbes seem to be talking about allows people to get wealthier and wealthier without paying a penny more, since it restricts what's meant by "income." Sure, its wicked simple and MIGHT even be a smidge fairer than the present system (though I doubt it, actually), but as I said, those are hardly dispositive.

[Gary Sisco]

Depends, Walto. A real flat tax is simple math. Ten percent. Period. Inheritance? Ten percent. Period. Wages? Ten percent. Period.

Ten cents on a dollar. For everybody, rich, megarich, or what. No exceptions.

That's a flat tax. Anything else is bullshit meant to once again put the wood to wage-earners and make them once again foot the bills -- this time in the guise of "fairness."

I'd rather have the wood put to me honestly myself, as it is today, than have it put to me under the guise of "fairness" -- as it today, for example, with the SS/Medicare tax, which is in every regard an income tax.

[Gary Sisco]

Far's that goes, you could really close the "loopholes." Make it illegal for lawyers or accountants or such other parasites to have a part in tax preparations. Hey, you made 20 k this year? You owe 10 percent.

Unrealized gain? Well, then, there's no gain. When there is, you owe ten percent. And if there's any income or other economic benefit from the "unrealized" gain, you owe ten percent of it. Period.

Inheritance? You're worth half a mil more now than last year because of it? You owe ten percent. Period.

Fair's fair.

The trouble is people don't want fair. They want the pretense of fair. Cats who make only wages should pay the flat tax, but everyone else should pay it only on their salaries but not their other real gains in wealth. Fuck that. If it's going to be fair, it's going to be fair. Otherwise, I'm opposed. Fair is fair, in my book. There aren't different grades of it, that make things more fair for some than others. Which is normally what flat-taxers are trying to pull off.

[Gordon B]

Jimmy, see?


Gary, I want fair. Your proposal may be pie in a sky, but I support it, although 10% is probably too low.