are you in favorite of a flat % income tax ?...

[Dancing Fire]

i think that would be fair.everybody pays the same percentage.

 

[teebee]

I''d be cool with that...

DF, what about that "fair tax plan", heard of it? thoughts?

 

[cflutist]

That would be fine for websailor and I since we''ve been hit by AMT for several years now where we actually lost some deductions from our taxes.

Or, have a nationwide sales tax, the more you spend, the more you pay.

 

[MissAva]

Yes! 100%

 

[mrssalvo]

I would love say goodbye to a national income tax and go with a national sales tax. those who have more will spend more.

 

[Spartan]

Absolutely!

 

[websailor]

I''d rather use this income tax form.....

 

[ame]

Frankly if the government would stop giving tax breaks to only the wealthy the country would be in a lot better shape. But that''ll never happen.

If I KNEW that the richer folks in this country would be paying the proper amount of taxes Id be fine all around. I don''t see why I should be paying more out of my wages to support their lifestyles.

 

[MissAva]

What?!?!?! The top 1% is paying more then 50% of the taxes trust me you are supporting them in any way shape or form. They are supporting the welfare people who are sucking the life out of this country.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/3/2005 4:00:29 PM
Author: ame
Frankly if the government would stop giving tax breaks to only the wealthy the country would be in a lot better shape. But that''ll never happen.

If I KNEW that the richer folks in this country would be paying the proper amount of taxes Id be fine all around. I don''t see why I should be paying more out of my wages to support their lifestyles.

Why does this always come up? It blows my mind - do any research and you will understand that the top 1% pays THE LIONS SHARE of the taxes paid.

I''ll never understand this.

As for the flat tax - HAVE IT AT ME! We will be paying SIGNIFICANTLY less taxes.

 

[coconut]

Well...... when I was working at a hospital laboratory as a research technician I, getting underpaid, I was sure glad to receive my income tax return!!
I was a firm believer that ppl who made more $ should pay more tax!!

However,....
Now that I''m applying to medical school... and my husband already in his second year.....
I can''t help my greedy self thinking everyone should pay a flat % income tax.. sounds fair, no?

 

[MichelleCarmen]

What is the flat tax amount? 15%? I guess it would depend upon the amount. . .BUT, I'm not as much concerned with the amount we have to pay as I am with where the money we're currently paying is going! Let's see some national health care coverage.

Oh, this is sort of off the subject, but does anyone know if say you buy a house for $100K and then one year later have the house appraised and it appraises for $150K and you then take out an equity loan for $50K and then put the house up on the market and sell it for 150K, do you still have to pay capital gains on the $50K since your mortgage owing is now $150K? (basically can one avoid paying capital gains by drawing out the appreciation via HELOC before selling the house?)

 

[Momoftwo]

Matatora''s right. And something like the top 20% are paying a large percentage. There are several websites that show the real taxes paid by income levels. There are plenty of people who pay no taxes at all and actually get a refund from child credits and other entitlement programs. I''ve said this before. Don''t just listen to the news and politicians. Do some research.

For example: http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/oct1899.html

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/3/2005 5:04:03 PM
Author: MichelleCarmen

Oh, this is sort of off the subject, but does anyone know if say you buy a house for $100K and then one year later have the house appraised and it appraises for $150K and you then take out an equity loan for $50K and then put the house up on the market and sell it for 150K, do you still have to pay capital gains on the $50K since your mortgage owing is now $150K? (basically can one avoid paying capital gains by drawing out the appreciation via HELOC before selling the house?)

Michele, I think you already know the answer to your question.

Your basis is figured on past cost/current sale less any home improvement costs made within the last few months. I LOVE your logic though!

Talk to an accountant - but - and this is one of the last great loopholes (if you are in it for the long run) - you can buy an investment property of like kind and avoid paying cap gains on the 50k - it's a roll over investment that can roll over and over. Again, this is off the top of my head - it's not to be your residence. It has to be regarded as an investment, even if it's a vacation home that you rent out part of the year.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/3/2005 5:43:51 PM
Author: fire&ice
Your basis is figured on past cost/current sale less any home improvement costs made within the last few months.

Hmmm........a minor adjustment to the above.

As I understand it, home improvements that add value to the home, prolong its useful life, or adapt it to new uses are deductible at the time of sale regardless of when that improvement was made. You only need to keep the receipts to document it. We just added central air to our home, and if I sold this house 30 years from now, I could deduct the cost of that improvement because it added value to the home.

I think you are thinking of "decorating/repair" costs. Normally, you cannot deduct maintenance or repair costs at all, but the IRS recognizes "costs ordinarily attributed to decorating or repairs -- painting, wallpapering, planting flowers, maintenance, and the like -- are also selling costs if you complete them within 90 days of your sale and with the intention of making the home more saleable." In that limited instance, repairs are deductible.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/3/2005 7:06:59 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 8/3/2005 5:43:51 PM
Author: fire&ice
Your basis is figured on past cost/current sale less any home improvement costs made within the last few months.

Hmmm........a minor adjustment to the above.

As I understand it, home improvements that add value to the home, prolong its useful life, or adapt it to new uses are deductible at the time of sale regardless of when that improvement was made. You only need to keep the receipts to document it. We just added central air to our home, and if I sold this house 30 years from now, I could deduct the cost of that improvement because it added value to the home.

I think you are thinking of ''decorating/repair'' costs. Normally, you cannot deduct maintenance or repair costs at all, but the IRS recognizes ''costs ordinarily attributed to decorating or repairs -- painting, wallpapering, planting flowers, maintenance, and the like -- are also selling costs if you complete them within 90 days of your sale and with the intention of making the home more saleable.'' In that limited instance, repairs are deductible.

Quite possible and probable. In her timeframe, I would mind my P''s & Q''s - why did that come out of my mouth? What does that expression really mean.

On another note, we are running into the - is it MY residence or is it HIS residence for business purposes. Of course, it''s an exercise in futility as we don''t plan on selling (as I don''t think you are - ?????)

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 8/3/2005 5:04:03 PM
Author: MichelleCarmen
What is the flat tax amount? 15%? I guess it would depend upon the amount. . .BUT, I''m not as much concerned with the amount we have to pay as I am with where the money we''re currently paying is going! Let''s see some national health care coverage.

Oh, this is sort of off the subject, but does anyone know if say you buy a house for $100K and then one year later have the house appraised and it appraises for $150K and you then take out an equity loan for $50K and then put the house up on the market and sell it for 150K, do you still have to pay capital gains on the $50K since your mortgage owing is now $150K? (basically can one avoid paying capital gains by drawing out the appreciation via HELOC before selling the house?)

Steve Forbes propose 17% across the board for everybody.

 

[ame]

To quote, before my really friggin long response...
"What?!?!?! The top 1% is paying more then 50% of the taxes trust me you are supporting them in any way shape or form. They are supporting the welfare people who are sucking the life out of this country. " - Matatora

"Why does this always come up? It blows my mind - do any research and you will understand that the top 1% pays THE LIONS SHARE of the taxes paid.

I'll never understand this.

As for the flat tax - HAVE IT AT ME! We will be paying SIGNIFICANTLY less taxes." - fire&ice

"Matatora's right. And something like the top 20% are paying a large percentage. There are several websites that show the real taxes paid by income levels. There are plenty of people who pay no taxes at all and actually get a refund from child credits and other entitlement programs. I've said this before. Don't just listen to the news and politicians. Do some research.

For example: http://www.ncpa.org/oped/bartlett/oct1899.html"

So it's research you want?

*cracks neck*

How about this for research. Let's take a look at who controls the National Center for Policy Analysis and see if they would be a good source to quote as having a fair and unbiased source of information about taxation, shall we?

Founded in 1983, NCPA acts as an organizer for other conservative groups as well as conducting its own free-market oriented public policy analysis on issues such as health care, social security, fiscal policy, and the environment.

Founding Board Members
The NCPA began its existence in 1983 at the University of Dallas.
Wayne Calloway, President and CEO of Frito-Lay
Jere Thompson, President and CEO of the Southland Corporation
Robert Dedman, President and CEO of ClubCorp
Russell Perry, President and CEO of Republic Financial Services
Sir Antony Fisher, President and CEO of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Board Members

According to NCPA web site, March 25, 2003:
Thomas W. Smith, Managing Partner of Prescott Investors, Inc.
John C. Goodman, President, NCPA
Pete du Pont, Richards, Layton and Finger
James Cleo Thompson, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Thompson Petroleum Corporation
Jere W. Thompson, President, The Williamsburg Corporation
Dan W. Cook III, Senior Advisor, MHT Partners
Robert H. Dedman, Chairman of the Board, ClubCorp International
Virginia Manheimer, Trustee, The Hickory Foundation
Henry J. Bud Smith, Chairman, The Trinity Forum
Michael L. Whalen, President & CEO, Heart of America Restaurants & Inns

Funding
The NCPA web site states that it "receives 70% of its funding from foundations, 20% from corporations, and 10% from individuals." Between 1985 and 2001, the Center received $4,031,000 in 75 separate grants from only twelve foundations (http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?246).

Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation
Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Foundation)
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage), whom I ironically was employed by, unhappily, in Pittsburgh.
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
El Paso Energy Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation
Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
Lilly Endowment Inc.
Procter & Gamble Fund

Ya, probably not the most unbiased source of information.

Not to mention your point holds no water when you recognize federal taxation is not the only kind of tax anyone pays...

Or are you advocating cutbacks in things like the federal highway system, the military, Social Security, any chance at a national healthcare system, etc???

Clearly if you are making over $87,000 annually you have more free time to complain about your federal tax burden, and more money with which to back your viewpoint up. But is that really fair or just?

*cracks neck again...breaks for a quick ring inspection*

Ok...Im back. Would you like fries with that?

The richest 1% of Americans (about 1.3 million households) own one-half of the total financial assets in the U.S. This top 1% had an adjusted gross income of $313,000 in 2000, earning 21% of all reported income and paying 37% of the total federal income tax.

This might sound like a lot of the tax burden is on them, but when all state and local taxes are considered along with Social Security taxes, that America essentially has a flat tax, with all Americans paying about 19% of their income in taxes.

You see, the rich have been getting fabulously richer, and many of the ultra-wealthy greatly under-report their income and over-report their expenses, which means they pay far fewer taxes than they should. The super rich also use their political connections to reduce their taxes and even avoid paying what they already legally owe.

The limit on Social Security taxes in 2003 was $87,000. Every dollar earned over the $87,000 threshold went untaxed by Social Security.

A married couple who earned $87,000 paid $10,788 in Social Security taxes. The same amount paid by someone who earned $1,000,000 or even $100,000,000. For the married couple working two jobs, this tax cost them every eighth dollar earned while for th executive with the million-dollar salary the tax cost every ninety-third dollar earned.

This is just one element of how the middle and lower income individuals in this country subsidize the tax breaks for the wealthy.

Illegal tax shelters cost honest American taxpayers between $10 billion and $50 billion per year in lost tax dollars.

Due to a lack of IRS resources, only 25% of those individuals who fail to file tax returns are pursued by the IRS.

Due to a lack of enforcement, in 2002, the IRS assessed only 22 negligence penalties against corporations, a decline of 99% from 1999.

The IRS has been intentionally underfunded so that it is handcuffed in pursuing affluent tax cheats. In particular, the IRS probably needs 30,000 new auditors, most of whom should audit large corporations, partnerships, and wealthy individuals.

The unfairness of the poorest Americans facing a tax burden almost equal to that of those who are far better off has begun to sink in with some Americans who have long been in the thrall of the political donor class. As a congressman, Bob Riley of Alabama never met a tax cut for the rich he did not embrace. He actively modeled himself after the great tax cutter Ronald Reagan. But as governor of Alabama in 2003, Riley sought fundamental reform of a system that he said wrongly burdened the poor. Alabamans who earn less than $13,000 pay almost 11 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, while those making more than $229,000 pay just 4%.

You cannot have a debate about "fairness" when you skew the discussion to include just federal taxes paid and ignore all of the other taxes paid.

I'll be for a flat 15% tax rate when I have to pay the same percent of my salary on my shelter, sustenance, utilities, fuel, etc that everyone else has to pay. Until then I think we should seriously re-examine what the super rich pay and what the super poor are forced to try to live on and ask ourselves if that is really the kind of society we all want to be a part of.

Thank you, please drive through.

 

[ame]

(sorry, spotted some typos. It''s hard to make a quality arguement when half of your enters and spaces and commas are in the wrong spot.)

Just a little FYI I learned on the Daily Show:

Congress just approved an energy bill that gave $2.7Billion dollars to oil companies and $500Million dollars for oil resource development. This in light of the fact that Exxon/Mobil just reported $7.5B dollars in pure profit inthe last quarter alone...yes 3 MONTHS.

Socialism at its worst...

 

[Momoftwo]

Social Security Tax is not income tax per se, it's SS tax. Also, if you think someone making 87K per year is wealthy that's sad. And that's the problem here.Well, we make twice that and let me tell you, we pay more than our fair share of taxes every year and we are not wealthy by any means. It's all relative to where you live. I have a great house, yes and two kids in college, but we drive old cars and dont' travel a lot. The IRS will also tell you the tax burden on the so-called wealthy is higher as a percentage. We never got any child tax credits, or any other tax credits aimed at lower incomes. That's not fair either if you want to talk tax advantages. The reality is that the top 20% of income earners in this country include most of the middle class. You have to factor in demographics. Didn't realize we were discussing state taxes and the flat tax would not apply to that. I also didn't realize we lived in a socialist country! Capitalism is what allows people to make as much money as they can and no one should not be penalized for that. That's what supports this economy. There are also plenty of statistics that show who pays the most taxes in this country and the overall TOTAL tax burden is carried by those in the top income brackets. Capitalism is also what allows for anyone to succeed and move into those tax brackets. If you notice, politicians screaming about the poor and taxes dont' exactly give up any of their income to "help" anyone. Did you read the link I posted? The IRS also keeps statistics and they show the burden is on the top earners. The top 1% of earners in this country is a very, very small number of people relative to population and increasing their taxes would bring in very little. So, that is not the answer to your perceived problem with the wealthy having money. I agree with the flat tax. Fair across the board. Everyone paying the same percentage of income without penalizing anyone and to keep the economy going, some writeoffs for those that choose to take risks and invest.

And your last quote, "socialism at it's worst"? Excuse me? Adjusting taxes the way you want would be socialism.

 

[perry]

I would propose a different tax model entirely.

One on the effects of the tax system is how it uses or forces the expenditure of $ on activities that produce nothing for the american economy (the real american economy is the production and distribution of goods and information, with a bit of service industries like cleaning and transportation).

Filling out tax forms is a huge waste of american manpower and intellectual capital.

Thus, I would eliminate the personal income tax entirely. To be replaced by a combination of a national sales tax on consumer goods (food exempted)and Business taxes.

Along with greatly downsizing H&R Block and equivelent, the IRS and State Tax organizations would then be focused on aproximately 1-2 million business tax returns in the nation - instead of the current aproximately 125 million personal tax returns, plus the business tax returns.

The overall effect would be that more money would be in people''s pockets because of the elimination of a huge amount of dead weight jobs in our economy (and those people could then get into productive jobs that benifit the economy).

The rich would naturally pay more taxes as they buy more- and pricier- consumer goods. The very poor would pay little as they buy very little new consumer goods.

Perry

 

[lmurden]

You might reconsider the flat tax if you read this book

Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else, by David Cay Johnston

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/3/2005 10:49:26 PM
Author: ame
Clearly if you are making over $87,000 annually you have more free time to complain about your federal tax burden, and more money with which to back your viewpoint up. But is that really fair or just?

Yes, you are absolutely correct. We have TONS of free time.

You no of not what you speak. PERIOD. I know how much taxes we pay.

Simiply put, and my last comment to your tirade. You are wrong.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

I''m not trying to get into an argument with anyone, and perhaps this should be in the different thread, but sometimes it appears that sometimes there are negative moral judgments about those who are wealthy. Why is this? Why do some people assume that because a person has money, it must be that they didn''t work hard and sacrifice to get where they are today? I''m just curious (and in no way wealthy myself).

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/4/2005 11:39:09 AM
Author: Logan Sapphire
I''m not trying to get into an argument with anyone, and perhaps this should be in the different thread, but sometimes it appears that sometimes there are negative moral judgments about those who are wealthy. Why is this? Why do some people assume that because a person has money, it must be that they didn''t work hard and sacrifice to get where they are today? I''m just curious (and in no way wealthy myself).

First, the term "wealthy" is relative.

But, yes, it would seem so. I don''t have an answer except that perhaps it is a way of rationalizing their own situation. being wealthy = being immoral - so why would I want to be immoral?

Morality isn''t about your financial situation. I''ve known fine wealthy people & fine poorer people. And, I''ve seen the reverse be true as well.

When it''s all said and done, a family with an income of $300,000.00 will pay far in excess of $100,000.00 in taxes. For a family making $50k a year, it will take close to 15 years to pay off a $100,000.00 tax liability.

And, that is just straight income tax without EIC, etc. I know of one individual that made about 18k. She paid NO income tax & received money back from the government.

Oh, and one more thing, your deductions & exemptions etc., are all less and except or limited over a certain about of income.

 

[onedrop]

Logan: You ask a great question! It seems that there are a lot of negative stereotypes about the wealthy, but there are also many floating around about the poor. What the reasons are I have no clue. When you see or hear news reports about the highly-paid executives involved in the Enron scandal and Worldcom and others, I think there is a perception that you have to rob to get rich. Not saying that it''s true but just tossing a theory out there. The fact is most who are considered wealthy work really, really hard to get there, and I respect that.

The same goes for those considered low-income. Many people (not all) think that poor people are lazy. This is not at all true and if they had their druthers, I don''t think that they''d choose to take handouts as a way of life. Even with gov''t "handouts" no one is getting rich that way. It just so happens that for some people not matter how hard they work it will never be enough.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Date: 8/4/2005 12:42:34 PM
Author: onedrop
Logan: You ask a great question! It seems that there are a lot of negative stereotypes about the wealthy, but there are also many floating around about the poor. What the reasons are I have no clue. When you see or hear news reports about the highly-paid executives involved in the Enron scandal and Worldcom and others, I think there is a perception that you have to rob to get rich. Not saying that it''s true but just tossing a theory out there. The fact is most who are considered wealthy work really, really hard to get there, and I respect that.

The same goes for those considered low-income. Many people (not all) think that poor people are lazy. This is not at all true and if they had their druthers, I don''t think that they''d choose to take handouts as a way of life. Even with gov''t ''handouts'' no one is getting rich that way. It just so happens that for some people not matter how hard they work it will never be enough.

Onedrop, I totally agree that there are misconceptions about lower-income people as well.

My husband and I have this debate all the time. Why should people with more money have to pay more taxes than those who make less? Is this fair? One could make the argument that those with more money have a greater responsibility to society. I don''t know. Just food for thought.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 8/4/2005 12:42:34 PM
Author: onedrop
Logan: You ask a great question! It seems that there are a lot of negative stereotypes about the wealthy, but there are also many floating around about the poor. What the reasons are I have no clue. When you see or hear news reports about the highly-paid executives involved in the Enron scandal and Worldcom and others, I think there is a perception that you have to rob to get rich. Not saying that it''s true but just tossing a theory out there. The fact is most who are considered wealthy work really, really hard to get there, and I respect that.

The same goes for those considered low-income. Many people (not all) think that poor people are lazy. This is not at all true and if they had their druthers, I don''t think that they''d choose to take handouts as a way of life. Even with gov''t ''handouts'' no one is getting rich that way. It just so happens that for some people not matter how hard they work it will never be enough.

True - but it seems like talking about the wealthy in negative stereotypes is more acceptable. Wouldn''t I get flamed if I said "poor people are lazy"? But, yet I see over and over again posts about the wealthy avoiding taxes.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Date: 8/4/2005 12:55:06 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 8/4/2005 12:42:34 PM
Author: onedrop
Logan: You ask a great question! It seems that there are a lot of negative stereotypes about the wealthy, but there are also many floating around about the poor. What the reasons are I have no clue. When you see or hear news reports about the highly-paid executives involved in the Enron scandal and Worldcom and others, I think there is a perception that you have to rob to get rich. Not saying that it''s true but just tossing a theory out there. The fact is most who are considered wealthy work really, really hard to get there, and I respect that.

The same goes for those considered low-income. Many people (not all) think that poor people are lazy. This is not at all true and if they had their druthers, I don''t think that they''d choose to take handouts as a way of life. Even with gov''t ''handouts'' no one is getting rich that way. It just so happens that for some people not matter how hard they work it will never be enough.

True - but it seems like talking about the wealthy in negative stereotypes is more acceptable. Wouldn''t I get flamed if I said ''poor people are lazy''? But, yet I see over and over again posts about the wealthy avoiding taxes.

Exactly. Just like it''s more acceptable to taunt skinny people rather than overweight people, for example. Rude comments are still rude comments, no matter to whom they''re said.

 

[Dancing Fire]

agree with...
LS,F&I and momoftwo