Here's *MY* simplification of the federal income tax code

[scheming daemons]

(first number is individuals, second number is families)

Income, including Capital Gains income:

0% on first 30,000        (60,000 for families)
10% on 30,000 to 60,000   (60,000 to 120,000 for families)
20% on 60,000 to 120,000  (120,000 to 240,000 for families)
30% on 120,000 to 240,000 (240,000 to 400,000 for families)
50% on 200,000+           (400,000+ for families)

Corporations:  Flat 25% on all profits, no deductions or subsidies

---

Absolutely ZERO deductions.

There would be no need for tax software or tax accountants. The 1040 would be the size of a postcard.

The poor (under 30k individual, 60k family) would pay no federal income tax.

More money would be brought into the treasury. It would be fair, and it would be progressive. The business world would have "certainty", families would have "certainty"... everyone would know what they're paying and cheating would be much more difficult.

There'd be less lobbyists, since a lot of them are lobbying to get loopholes in the tax code for the wealthy.

The economy would improve, the deficit would go down.



Who's with me?

[ananda]

1. I like it!

nt

[Shagbark Hickory]

2. Don't look at me.

And what about payroll tax.

This is quasi teabaggish, hate to say it.
25% flat tax for corporations? Really? So the mom and pop diner on the corner is going to get a quarter of their income sucked out with no deductions?

[scheming daemons]

3. teabaggish? Closing all loopholes for corporations and setting it to 25%?

It's currently 35%, but there are so many loopholes for big corporations that some of them pay nothing at all.


The mom and pop diner goes from 35% down to 25%. So it helps them.

[Make7]

17. If the mom and pop diner is making less than $119,643 their tax rate is already 25% or less.

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States
 

[scheming daemons]

29. Ok.... so kick in the 25% rate at some number like profits above $150,000.

[scheming daemons]

7. Also... payroll tax is separate... I'd keep it the same but remove the caps so wealthy pay it

all the way up.

This was for the income tax only.

[Shagbark Hickory]

20. Good grief.

Self employed people... beware of this plan!

[scheming daemons]

21. Why? Payroll taxes are what 6% for SS and 3% for Medicare?

But with a SS cap at 107,000. Get rid of the cap. pay 6% on ALL income for SS and 3% on ALL income for Medicare (same as now for Medicare).


SS stays solvent forever, with no cuts.

[Shagbark Hickory]

47. You made a very valid effort to try to simplify the tax code.

You should be commended for that.
Why not move on to energy or immigration next?

[greymattermom]

9. tax on profit

That would be a quarter of their profit, would encourage them to hire a few people, fix up the place, wouldn't it? Or would no deductions prevent businesses from remodeling?

[Shagbark Hickory]

18. I would tend to think so!

As a businessman myself, I've invested a lot of money the past couple of years thanks to tax deductions.
My business is not using loopholes or tax havens and offshore accounts.

[MADem]

10. Indeed, many small businesses "incorporate" to protect their homes, cars, and so on.

But they aren't pulling in a huge amount.

[scheming daemons]

13. Ok... tweak the corporate rates... but what about the individual simplification?

[Shagbark Hickory]

22. I take it you think people making upper 20's-30 are poor. Why shouldn't they pay any tax?

[scheming daemons]

26. They're still paying payroll taxes (SS and Medicare).....

...and yes... somebody making less than 30,000/year is what we call the "working poor".


The poverty line is currently around $22,000/year.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

34. It really does depend on where you live.

There are places in the US where you can rent a HOUSE--not an apartment, a HOUSE--for three hundred bucks.

There's usually not a lot of jobs in those areas, but if you're a lucky skunk who is working, that leaves you with way more disposable income than the schmuck paying twelve to fifteen hundred for a crappy apartment in a high rent area.

$30K a year is an entirely "liveable" wage in some parts of the country, but in other parts, it's tough sledding. It depends on the housing market, mostly.

[Shagbark Hickory]

41. Precisely. So why the same for the entire country when

comparing incomes in different parts of the country might as well compare the incomes to a developing nation.

[MADem]

46. Because you need to have a "starting point."

Federal assistance programs work hand in hand with state assistance programs to even out the difference, in most cases.

It's like fuel assistance--you don't need home heating help in Florida, but you sure as hell might in Vermont.

If you want info on your particular state, go to your state dot gov pages and you should find it.

[Shagbark Hickory]

50. Like I said, so much for simplification.

Fit on a postcard my ass

[scheming daemons]

52. Is it not simpler than the current system?

... and my state taxes fit on a postcard (PA)... no reason the federal couldn't also.

[Shagbark Hickory]

56. Oh, it's simpler, allright!

:-)

[MADem]

53. Look that would be the FEDERAL burden. The state tax burden is a different thing entirely.

But it always HAS BEEN.

Of course, those red states with no income tax might find themselves fucked a bit, since the feds might not kick back so much to them with a modified tax code. They might have to come up with their own little postcards.

[Shagbark Hickory]

58. How's that working out?

[MADem]

124. How's what working out? I don't take your point. NT

[MADem]

126. You are arguing apples and oranges. State tax and Federal tax are UNRELATED.

One doesn't depend on the other. Some states tax, others do not. This would be true even if federal taxes could fit on your little postcard.

Go back to your US Constitution and refresh yourself on the relationships between federal and state governments. It's not like the governors are little lieutenants doing the bidding of the president, after all. The states are entities unto themselves.

[MADem]

I think your figures might be perceived by Congress as a bit generous.

I think they'd probably go for $25 single, $50 for a family.

You would need to get closer to the "poverty level" to get them to buy off on anything, I think.

[scheming daemons]

32. 30/60 is pretty darn close to the poverty level.

But you're probably right.


Also... members of congress won't like the 50% top rate.

[MADem]

39. Actually, no, it isn't. The federal "poverty level" for this year is just under eleven grand for an

individual, and just over 22K for a family of four.

http://www.coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf



Regional rates will, of course, vary. It costs more to live in NYC than it does it Presque Isle, ME.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. Mom and pop stores are usually sole proprietorships

They figure their profit or loss on Schedule C, and it is then taxed as personal income.

[jmowreader]

112. NO business should be a sole proprietorship!

Liability is the reason.

John owns an auto repair shop. He puts a new brake hose he had fabricated at Luis' House of Hose on Mary's car. Luis made the hose out of Acme tubing and Zeta ends. The brake hose was internally defective and failed, letting Mary crash into the back of a tractor trailer. Mary's attorney is going to go after John for installing a defective brake hose, Luis for making a defective brake hose, Acme for making bad tubing and Zeta for making bad ends.

If John is incorporated, and it doesn't cost very much to set up a Subchapter S corporation, Mary's lawyers can seize the business but they usually can't pierce the corporate veil to go after the company officers' personal fortunes. If he's operating as a sole proprietorship, they can take all his personal property too--even though the root cause of the failure is tubing neither John nor Luis believed to be defective.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. But the FACT is that many are

:shrug:

[jmowreader]

120. I know that, and it worries me

These small businesses are the Only Hope For America, at least according to the GOP, and they expose their owners to every kind of business liability in the world.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uben]

4. Needs a little tweaking......

Rich people pay 80% tax rate


The rest of us get to party!

[scheming daemons]

5. Make another tier at say $2 million and above at 70-80% would be ok.

[Make7]

6. The corporate tax rate should still be progressive.

Flat tax rates are inherently unfair - which is probably why your individual rates are progressive.
 

[scheming daemons]

8. I'm ok with that

[NYC_SKP]

11. Try this: Annual Income / 4,000 = tax rate. (Gets rid of brackets)

This eliminates brackets, makes it truly progressive.

It would have to phase out as some point around $300,000/year cuz at $400,000 the rate becomes 100%.

:shrug:

[scheming daemons]

12. For somebody making $28,000, that's a 7% rate. No good.

People making less that 30k individually or 60k joint should pay nothing.

[NYC_SKP]

15. Then we add a little thing to the equation...

(Income - $30,000) divided by 4 = Tax Rate

Thus there is no rate until you hit the $30K mark, then it starts at 1% and goes up 1% for each $4,000 in annual income.

:shrug:

[taught_me_patience]

68. Why should someone making 30k pay nothing?

Do they not benefit from what income taxes provide?

[Coyote_Bandit]

14. So.................?

Somebody who earns $59,000 pays $5,900 in tax (10%) and somebody who earns $61,000 pays $12,200 in tax (20%). The guy who earns $59,000 has $53,100 in disposable funds. The guy who earns $61,000 only has $48,800 in disposable funds. A difference of over $4,300. That sucks.

[scheming daemons]

16. No... somebody making $59,000 pays ZERO on their first $30,000... and 10% on the next 29,000.

Do you even understand how the CURRENT taxes work?

You only pay the higher rates on the dollars ABOVE a certain level.


*NOBODY* pays ANY taxes on their first 30,000. Everybody pays 10% on their NEXT 30,000... and so on.

[Coyote_Bandit]

111. I misread the OP

Sorry. I'm vision impaired and using a much smaller screen at the moment than I am accustomed to.

[scheming daemons]

19. Using your example:

Person making 59,000:

0% on first 30,000
10% on next 29,000

= $2900 in taxes, take home pay of $56,100


Person making 61,000:
0% on first 30,000
10% on next 30,000
20% on next 1,000

= $3200 in taxes, take home pay of $57,800

[Shagbark Hickory]

23. So much for a simplification!

As you can see, simplifying the tax code is not so easy.

WE all wish it was and that we could all spend an afternoon and agree on the ideal tax schedule.

[scheming daemons]

24. What's so hard about that?

0% on first 30,000

10% on next 30,000 (dollars 30,001 to 60,000)

20% on next 60,000 (dollars 60,001 to 120,000)

30% on next 120,000 (dollars 120,001 to 240,000)

50% on all above 240,000 (dollars 240,001 to infinity)



Like I said.... the 1040 would fit on a postcard.


Give me your gross income, and I'll figure out your tax bill in 30 seconds.

[Telly Savalas]

128. People that think that multiple brackets are too complicated

should not be dispensing advice on tax policy.

[NutmegYankee]

28. This is simplication.

It takes just basic math. Hell, it could even be made into tables like the current tax code. Just look at your income (no deductions remember?) and read over to your situation (married, single, head of household(single parent)) and that's your tax.

[Luminous Animal]

66. It is very simple and it is called progressive taxation and it is no different

than how taxes are currently computed on taxable income.

What the OP is proposing is that there are no deductions on personal income. That would simplify things enormously.

[joshcryer]

125. That's extremely simple, it's that way already, but with all the BS loopholes...

...exemptions and whatnot, it's not as easy to deal with.

[alcibiades_mystery]

85. You clearly don't understand how taxes work.

[Coyote_Bandit]

110. Ummmm......

No. I'm vision impaired and sometimes have trouble reading my computer screen.

But thanks for juping to a quick conclusion without knowing anythig of my circumstances.

[alcibiades_mystery]

114. Oy vey

:rofl:

[Coyote_Bandit]

115. Ummmm......

I find very little humor in having 20/80 corrected vision.

Laugh if you want. It just reminds me of schoolyard bullies.

Welcome to my fucking ignore list.

[alcibiades_mystery]

116. Gahahahahaha

Could you possibly include more pathetic DU tropes?

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

25. One thing I don't understand: Why do "Families" get a different rate?

If person A makes 50,000 and is single, person A would pay $2000 in taxes.

If person B had the exact same job earning $50,000 but also had a spouse, Person B pays $0 taxes.


:shrug:

[scheming daemons]

27. By families, I mean two earners filing jointly.... both parents working... two breadwinners

[cleanhippie]

30. I understand that, I just don't understand why.

WHY do two people who choose to combine (if both work, of course) their incomes do they get a better deal?

In my scenario above, assume the spouse does not work. Person B is not paying taxes at all While Person A does. Thats unfair, IMO.


If there are no deductions allowed and the 1040 is the size pf a postcard, wouldn't it make sense for ALL income earners to file independently, so that each person is taxed at the same exact rate?

[scheming daemons]

I guess the assumption is that if both spouses work, they should combine their salaries into one tax

"entity".

That's how it is now. Helps families in which one spouse makes a WHOLE lot more than the other spouse.


If I make 150,000 and my wife makes 30,000... we get a break by combining it to 180,000 and filing jointly at the double-levels.


Your way gives no incentive for marriage and combination of assets. It's like two "roommates".

[cleanhippie]

37. Exactly. Why is there an incentive for marriage?

Thats the part I don't get.

[MADem]

43. Conventional wisdom says that married people will produce worker bees who will contribute

to Social Security so that geezers can get their checks.

The conventional wisdom has not caught up with today's reality, which is that no one gets married anymore, and no one gives a shit. There are more "little bastards" (using the antiquated definition of the word) running about than there are "legitimate" (again, using the antique definition of the term) children in many neighborhoods.

The moralizing lawmaking class just hasn't caught up with that reality.

[cleanhippie]

65. Yes, I think you hit it spot on. But I cannot tell whether you agree or not with my premise.

[MADem]

127. I'll be honest, I'm not terribly invested in an opinion either way--yet.

I'm just now chewing over this topic!

[Shagbark Hickory]

35. Couldn't agree more with clean hippie.

And no more quantity discounts on dependents.

[cleanhippie]

40. While I am 100% Pro-choice, I do not understand why we incentivize having kids.

[Shagbark Hickory]

44. Me neither!

This may have made sense in another time when more people were needed to work on the family farm. But now its just unfair. There should be incentives for not having kids.

[NutmegYankee]

48. It isn't an incentive for children - it's for marriage.

The idea being that there are two wage earners in a couple.

[cleanhippie]

57. Yes, but WHY?

Why do we incentivize marriage?

[NutmegYankee]

78. Marriage is thought to make for a stable society.

And under law a married couple is treated as a unit. Their finances are combined, such as loans and bank accounts, and they can make medical decisions for the other. Tax codes are just following through with the obvious - treating the couple as a financial unit. There are exceptions - single parents for instance get the same financial benefits through the "Head of Household" option.

[MADem]

49. So they can pay your social security, that's why.

That was the general idea--a contract between generations, and all that.

[cleanhippie]

64. I get that part, but it would seem we are in a never-ending spiral that requires

continual population growth to function, and that is not sustainable.

[Luminous Animal]

84. Why would we need to continually increase the population?

[cleanhippie]

87. .

I just answered this question here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1777650&mesg_id=1778226

lets move to that sub-thread to continue this conversation.

[MADem]

123. That's why we need to seek out new planets, Cap'n Kirk! nt

[Luminous Animal]

59. So that there are people around to wipe your ass when you can't do it anymore.

[cleanhippie]

67. We need to have more children so that they can work in nursing homes?

[Luminous Animal]

88. Among many other things. The children of today are the workers of tomorrow who

will provide essential and non-essential services and products. They will also be paying taxes to maintain infrastructure.

[cleanhippie]

90. Agreed. And with unemployment near 10%, wouldn't it make sense to decrease

population over time so that we do not have to continually create more and more jobs (mostly overseas) to produce the products we as consumers need?

[Luminous Animal]

93. I'm totally for negative population growth. Currently, the U.S. fertility is about

the replacement rate. I think that it should be lower.

[cleanhippie]

94. So how do we accomplish that?

It would seem that our current system of creating incentives to marry and/or have children only exacerbates the problem.

[Luminous Animal]

96. As I stated below, most European countries provide excellent support for families and

most have negative fertility rates.

Currently, native born U.S. women are producing children at below the replacement rate. It's immigrant women who pull the fertility rate up. By the second generation, this difference is negligible.

[NutmegYankee]

36. There are several thoughts behind it.

A single person is usually supporting themselves, whereas a single parent claims Head of Household which is equal to the Family bracket. A Family on the other hand is feeding and providing for more than one person. A single person making 50K is doing far better than two people with 50K.

[cleanhippie]

38. Yes, but that is a personal choice.

I am 100% PRO-choice. Have as many kids as you want.


But why should there be an incentive, subsidized by the government in the form of a lower tax rate, to do that?

[NutmegYankee]

45. Because society values Families. nt

[cleanhippie]

60. Come on, thats not an answer.

I am not disagreeing with you, but I am trying to figure out WHY we do the things we do.

[Luminous Animal]

61. In Europe, definitely. Not so much in the U.S.

[NutmegYankee]

Families or married have more earners or mouths to feed.

Sure, a married couple as DINCs (Double Income No Children) will get a benefit but they will also climb higher in the tax brackets with the combined income.

[cleanhippie]

33. I understand that, but creating "more mouths to feed" is a personal choice, no?

If, as the OP states, 1040's are simple and the size of a postcard, why not just have each individual income earner file an individual 1040. That way EVERYONE, every single income earner in the country, gets taxed equally. Equality is the goal here, no?

[NutmegYankee]

42. The other mouth to feed may be the spouse.

If the spouse doesn't work then the idea is we are dividing the tax between them as a unit. I realize single people take it hard (I'm a single guy making 90K as an engineer, Trust me - I know). But the disposable income of a single person is far higher than a family. Children cost money, and it's in societies best interest to make it somewhat easier to raise them. And children are important - like all animals we need to produce offspring.

[cleanhippie]

70. While I strongly agree that children ARE important...

The LAST thing we, as a nation or a planet, need is to continue the exponential population growth, no?

[NutmegYankee]

73. Two children per family is a sustaining rate.

The US is mostly growing due to immigrants and their families. The rest of the US is growing at just above replacement rate.

[cleanhippie]

77. Well, I feel that we would be better off if population DECREASED for a decade or two.

[NutmegYankee]

81. I sure wouldn't.

Our social systems (like medicare and SS) would collapse and the economy would decline because of less demand. A stable rate would be enough to get our consumption under control as we changed our habits.

[cleanhippie]

89. Perhaps. I would like to see the numbers on that.

I certainly am not basing MY opinion on any hard numbers either. Both sound plausible to me. It would be interesting to see how the data played that out.

[Luminous Animal]

92. Oh lord, our great grandparents managed to educate the baby boomers.

We can certainly support them in their old age until they are all dead.

Negative population growth, globally, would be a good thing.

[Luminous Animal]

62. Owning a car is a personal choice and that is subsidized with taxes.

I don't own a car so WHY WHY WHY are you using my taxes to drive. Waaaahhhh!

[cleanhippie]

74. What are you talking about?

And I am just trying to ask some questions and have a conversation here. I sense that you are moving into the area of insult and ridicule and I don't think thats necessary to have this conversation, is it?

We are on the same side here LA, I'm just asking WHY we do some of the things we do.

[Luminous Animal]

82. No, you clearly stated that you thought combining family income is unfair.

There are a lot of things that are unfair. Taxes for public schools that I don't use. Taxes for single-occupancy vehicles that I don't use.

We do these things because we are a society and well-fed, well-housed, and well-clothed people create a stable society. Children raised with adequate resources are less likely to flash-rob you at a 7-11.

[cleanhippie]

86. And I agree with everything you stated.

But I do not agree with creating incentives to marry and/or have children. Doing so has created the ctach-22 we find ourselves in right now: We need to increase population in order to have more income earners to pay for the increase in population in order to have more income earners...

[Luminous Animal]

95. Most European countries have far greater benefits for families and yet most European

countries have a negative replacement fertility rate. Fertility rates correlate more to religious values and the education of women than to the support that families receive from society.

[cherokeeprogressive]

98. So is owning a house a "personal choice". Do away with the mortgage deduction then?

Cuz I sure as fuck ain't gettin' it.

I kinda like the way you think.

[Luminous Animal]

100. As the OP stated, there will be zero deductions. Not for mortgages. Not for children.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[Odin2005]

51. I agree with this. There are WAY too many deductions.

There is no point for deductions when everyone and their dog has their own special deduction.

[kestrel91316]

54. Works for me. My very small business nets me considerably less than 30k these days.

Business expenses stay almost the same but income drops when the economy sucks.

[Turbineguy]

55. Armies of unemployed accountants

terrorizing people with long balance sheets.

[taught_me_patience]

63. I like a flat progressive tax but not this idea

First: the median income is 25,000, so your plan would mean that 50% of wage earners would pay no federal income tax. This is completely wrong... everybody who lives in society benefits from income taxes, so everybody should pay (no matter how small the amount).

Second; Your 250k cutoff for 50% marginal rate is way too low. In certain cities, 250k income is not "wealthy" and when you add in state taxes, your marginal rate could be 60% at 250k? That's way too high.

[NutmegYankee]

69. Oh for fucks sake!

I live in the Northeast man - 250K is wealthy. The fucking poor in the city still make less than 30K a year.

[Luminous Animal]

75. No shit. I live in San Francisco and 250K is wealthy.

[Luminous Animal]

71. What is a flat progressive tax?

[taught_me_patience]

79. Progressive tax rates with no deductions or credits. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

97. Ah, I was confused because flat rate and progressive rate are two different things.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. Think this through

We're always told that we can't tax the rich more, or else they'll move to the Cayman Islands or will suffer somehow.

Yet we're supposed to tax the POOR more? Are you from Alabama, because that's exactly what those idiots did with their state tax. The poor pay at a higher rate.

[taught_me_patience]

109. I'm for the rich paying more, but for everybody to pay

Here's my ideal progressive tax:

1-20: 5%
20-50: 10%
50-100: 15%
100-150: 20%
150-250: 25%
250-500: 30%
500-1MM: 35%
1-5MM: 40%
5MM+: 50%

No deductions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

118. Wow, how humanitarian of you

The poor will pay more, but people making between $50K and $1M will pay LESS.

FAIL.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. In the 1950s IRS Form 1040A was literally a postcard. N/T

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. For corporate tax, the "deductions" come at the point where you figure profit or loss

Example:

Company X does $10,000,000 worth of business this year.

It has $9,000,000 in legitimate business expenses (employee wages and benefits, upgrading facilities, R&D, supplies, repairs, advertising).

It pays tax on $1,000,000.

That's the current system.

You could argue getting rid of the types of loopholes that allow companies to claim bogus losses, though.

[aikoaiko]

91. As a family between 60-120K, you would be raising my taxes.

After deductions my effective tax rate is 6 - 8%.

Is that your intent?

[Luminous Animal]

99. I think that is fair.

[aikoaiko]

104. Sure, a middle class family like mine can take another hit.

[Luminous Animal]

107. Edited because, as pointed out below... your whining is unwarrented.

[aikoaiko]

117. basd on your post #102, you misunderstood too.

What justifies you fuckin attitude? Perhaps you were hoping to tax the middle class more.

[Make7]

101. Based on the OP, wouldn't your effective tax rate be 0 - 5% for that income level? ( n/t )

[Luminous Animal]

102. Not if deductions are eliminated.

[aikoaiko]

103. No, it would go up 2 - 4 % to 10%

My effective tax rate is 6 - 8% most years because of mortgage interest, dependents, and health care deductions.

[Make7]

105. If your income was $120,000 for a family...

... based on the numbers in the OP (see below)...

Income, including Capital Gains income:

0% on first 30,000        (60,000 for families)
10% on 30,000 to 60,000   (60,000 to 120,000 for families)

Family making $120,000:
0% on first $60,000 = $0
10% on next $60,000 = $6,000

Total = $6,000 in taxes on $120,000 of income

$6,000 / $120,000 = 5% effective tax rate
 

[NutmegYankee]

106. The effective tax rate is not the same as a bracket.

The first 60K has no tax. The rate is then 10% on the next 60K. Therefore, your tax rate can go from 0-5% effective.

[Yo_Mama]

108. That's a huge tax cut and we can't afford it

I wish we could, but....

You have to raise higher income individuals' taxes, but there isn't nearly enough income out there among the well-off to cover our current needs.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27547.html

We would make more off corporate income tax with a flat 25%, so I am okay on that. But we would have to tie up Congress' hands somehow to stop them from reintroducing all the special tax bennies.

[melm00se]

113. no offense but until you model

the taxes, you have no clue if the revenues produced will be under, over or meet the expenditures of the federal government so there is no way any sane person could get behind your plan.

[supraTruth]

121. Eliminating the home owner's mortgage interest & property tax deductions would be a BIG HIT for the

MIDDLE CLASS & BAD for America. Children need a REAL HOUSE to grow up in, and we should help that to happen ALWAYS.

Also, a family of 4 or 5 in CA or N.Y. may have both parents working & if making that $200,000, would be classified as UPPER MIDDLE CLASS & with college tuition being what it is these days, 50% would be a big hit ESPECIALLY without any deductions.

Rates should be GRADUATED all the way up to a BILLION $.

Stopping ALL WARS (INCLUDING the FREAKING FAILED DRUG WAR) along with foreign MILITARY aid & BRINGING OUR TROOPS HOME FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD & SLASHING DEFENSE WASTE SHOULD BE OUR BIGGEST PRIORITIES, along with HIGHER taxes for the Super&Ultra-RICH.

[RegieRocker]

122. Add able to deduct all overhead and you have me.

[joshcryer]

129. Haven't read the whole thread, has anyone done the numbers on this? (edit)

I'm looking at BLS for a number breakdown for how many people are in a given bracket but it's impossible to find (I'm sure it's there, the data is just overwhelming).

edit: here we go, the BLS doesn't compile that data, apparently the Census does that part (household income): http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statistics/index.html

[joshcryer]

131. Found the tables:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/hhinc/new03_001.htm

I'm not an Excel person so it'd be cool if someone who knew how to use it could see how much this progressive code would earn.

[Logical]

130. For companies what do you mean by profits? Amount left after expenses?

[metalbot]

132. Everyone who makes a lot of money will just incorporate and pay the corporate taxes

What you'll see happening is that a professional football player will stop being an "employee" and will convert himself to a corporation that delivers "football services" and "endorsement services". He'll pay a flat tax of 25% rather than any of your proposed higher tax rates. He'll effectively get deductions by using his costs as business expenses. There's no way to kill this type of "abuse" of the corporate tax rate without killing small businesses.

I think you're also glossing over some fairly serious tax problems for multi-nationals. If Coke decides to sell coke in Brazil, they are going to pay corporate income tax to the Brazil government. Are you suggesting that they should pay an additional 25% to the US government for their revenue in Brazil? How would that compare to a European company that elects to do business in the US? Would the US try to go after their income in Europe? If not, then you provide incentive for every major US multinational to move its headquarters outside the US.

The tax codes aren't convoluted for the sake of being convoluted. They are convoluted because there are a huge range of circumstances for both individuals and corporations that we try to treat specifically.

[supraTruth]

135. Your last line is what is wrong w/ALL little stevie forbes' "flat" tax plans.

We need PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ALL THE WAY UP TO BILLIONS in income from ANY source, AFTER ALL LEGITIMATE deductions.

& we need to eliminate the Income CAP from the S.S. Payroll Tax, & use the additional funds to lower the Full Retirement age BACK to 65 & to beef up Medicare for our elderly.

& we need spending cuts FOCUSED on getting US out of ALL WARS INCLUDING THE DRUG WAR, as well as bringing our troops home from ALL OVER THE WORLD, the cessation of ALL foreign MILITARY aid, & the SLASHING of Defense WASTE.