The Citizens of America's Tax Plan

Information

The Citizens of America's Tax Plan

This group is about how American Citizens can come up with a fair tax system for America. Looking for ideas and comments to this issue, so lets build a plan together.

Members: 18
Latest Activity: Dec 11, 2014

Discussion Forum

This group does not have any discussions yet.

Comment Wall

Comment by Keith John Ferguson on January 26, 2012 at 12:09am

Basic federal individual income flat tax rate.  1.  Basic individual flat tax rate from $ 0.00 to $ 17.760.00 gross $ 0.00 payed  2. Basic individual flat tax rate from $ 17.760.00 to $ 35.520.00 gross  3.141 % payed  3. Basic individual flat tax rate from $ 35.520.00 to $ 53.280.00 gross 6.282 % payed  4. Basic individual flat tax rate from $ 53.280.00 to 71.040.00 gross 12.564 % payed  5. Basic individual flat tax rate from $ 71.040.00 to $ 88.800.00 gross 15.705 % payed  6. Basic individual flat tax rate from $ 88.800.00 to $ 106.560.00 gross 18.846 % payed  7. Basic individual flat tax rate from $ 106.560.00 to $ 124.320.00 gross 21.987 % payed.  This is part # 1 feed back need it.  Plus 8.  A 3.141 % federal consumption tax on all goods and services, exemption healthy foods and basic clothing, any other federal consumption tax applied now will not have this add on. 9. A 21% flat capital gains tax rate will be applied. 10. A combined Social Security and medicare tax less then $ 17.760.00 gross is 3.141 % employee rate, employer matching rate 6.282 % over $ 17.760.00 to 177.600.00 gross employee rate is 9.423 % employer matching rate is 6.282 % 11. A combined tax rate for self- employed person less then $ 17.760.00 gross is 6.242 % rate over $ 17.760.00 to 177.600.00 gross is 12.482 % rate.  Plus no funds will be taken from the Social Security and medicare fund for any other federal use.  Feed back need it. Thanks for your time. K.J.F.

Comment by Keith John Ferguson on November 10, 2014 at 8:16pm

I would like feed back on plan, thanks again for your time, KJF

Comment by Scolos Narbarson on November 10, 2014 at 11:35pm

As progressive tax rate plans go, your breakdown seems fair to me.

I am concerned as to why you stopped at "$177,600.00"?

What about earnings (wages or salaries) over $177,600.00 ?

I wholeheartedly support your proposal about the Federal use of Social Security and Medicare. Those funds should be for Citizens benefits only. In my opinion.

Comment by Sensible Sailor on November 11, 2014 at 12:13pm

We essentially have a tiered tax rate in our current system... Just to clarify, let's say I earned 50k a yr: Do I pay 6.282% on all of my 50k?, or do I pay 0 on the first $17,760, 3.141% on the $17,760-$35,520 portion, and 6,282% on the rest up to $50k? difference being a tax bill of $3141 or $1467.47.

I'm not keen on the flat 21% capital gains tax rate. I'm only a modest investor and clear maybe a $1000 in dividends and profits each year. I don't like the idea of losing $210 of that to the fed. Especially when I assumed all the risk of the investment. If I lose money, all the losses are mine; if I win, the govt gets 21% of my winnnings. That's a Vegas racket!

I'm intrigued by your proposal of a national sales tax. I suggest it be implemented in a manner of a Value Added Tax (VAT) where the tax is already factored into the price of the goods and is transparent to the consumer, i.e. I buy a coke for a $1, I pay a $1, not a $1.03. 

I have some concerns with your possible sales tax exemptions. I like the idea, but the implementation would be a legal furball. What constitutes basic clothing? Who decides what is healthy? Everyone needs pants, but what's basic? Designer jeans for $500, $40 Levis, or a generic Wal-Mart brand for $19? I'll end with Bill Cosby's classic story of when his kids asked to eat chocolate cake for breakfast. His initial thoughts are heck no, but then he considers the ingredients: eggs, milk, flour... all healthy items. He gives them chocolate cake and they praise him and all is great with the world, that is until his wife comes down... 

Comment by Sensible Sailor on November 11, 2014 at 12:36pm

Directed to JEK jr- I disagree with you on the tax proposal eliminating incentive to earn more and I'll use video games to explain why.

I think we can all agree that video games are wildly popular. One of the basic concepts behind nearly all games is that of progressively harder levels. This doesn't discourage people from playing, if anything it enhances the experience. As greater levels are reached, more options are available and gameplay is enhanced.

So it goes in real life. At $17k a yr, I'm rooming with buddies in an apt or trailer and driving a 10 yr old car. I'm not paying taxes, but trust me, I want to make more money. At $35k, I might be renting an apt or townhouse of my own and have a 5 yr old car. I'm a little more comfortable, but I still want to advance in life. At $50k, I'd be pretty satisfied with enough to cover a mortgage on a 3 BR house in the suburbs and maybe even a new car. But I'm still gonna want more in order to buy that dream house on the hill and that shiny new BMW/Mercedes from the commercial I just saw. My tax rate isn't going to affect those desires, nor those of millions of other Americans.

Comment by Sensible Sailor on November 11, 2014 at 12:50pm

One last thought on JEK Jr's "there should be no minimum, everyone ought to pay" concept.  I kinda agree with it under the line of reasoning that those who don't pay for anything have no vested interest in changing anything. If everyone contributed, even if it was only 1%, there would be a lot more Americans paying attention to how our govt spends the money we give it.

Comment by Scolos Narbarson on November 11, 2014 at 8:50pm

John Edward Kurian Jr. shared: "No one should be penalized with a higher tax rate because their income is higher."

This seems like a perspective that addresses "Fairness". I have to support this feeling and position.

Who's idea was a progressive tax rate anyway? What were they thinking...trying to do?

But, the same flat tax rate should apply only up to the point where the "earnings" hit one billion per annum. Then I think it is right and fair, to the nation, to tax that excess puppy with 100% taxation. I really take a "hard set", when it comes to Individual billionairism.

Anyway, the same cut from any earnings seems fairer and simpler to me. No one should be punished for achieving higher earnings, unless the method of that earning is criminal, or brings "harm" to People. Well regulated exceptions might be in order. (Weapons manufacturing for example)

Comment by Sensible Sailor on November 12, 2014 at 10:53pm

A flat % tax seems fair when one only looks at numbers. But these aren't just numbers. They are people's salaries and livelihoods. 

Let's use a 10% rate just for the ease of math. Say someone earns $20,000 a year. They would be responsible for $2k in taxes. Now when you take $2,000 away from Will the waiter or Sally the sales clerk at the corner store, you're affecting what they put on the table for dinner, you're affecting what their kids wear to school.  The vast majority of people that make a mere $20,000 a yr are likely spending every last dime they've got. 

A 10% rate won't have the same effect on someone who makes $200,000  a yr. Now being responsible for $20,000 in taxes might affect what car a person drives or maybe where they vacation, but it doesn't affect whether or not they eat or are adequately clothed.

Let's bump it up to a cool $2 million. Now that person is coughing up a fat $200G in taxes, but he or she still has $1.8 million to play with. Your certainly not affecting what they eat, and probably not what they drive (Sorry honey, I'm taking the Rolls Royce, you'll just have to drive the Porsche.). The only thing you're likely affecting is how much they invest or how much interest they earn in savings.

This is why I think a tiered system is what should be used.

Comment by Scolos Narbarson on November 13, 2014 at 12:01am

Sensible Sailor really is, isn't he?

Sensible Sailor. I congratulate you on a well reasoned perspective that Truly reveals certain differences in the economic realities of wage, salary and profit takers.

You have shared: "Let's use a 10% rate just for the ease of math. Say someone earns $20,000 a year. They would be responsible for $2k in taxes. Now when you take $2,000 away from Will the waiter or Sally the sales clerk at the corner store, you're affecting what they put on the table for dinner, you're affecting what their kids wear to school.  The vast majority of people that make a mere $20,000 a yr are likely spending every last dime they've got."

Very interestingly, you have thrown light on a difference in the useful "range" of low income earners...compared to that of higher earners. The first twenty thousand dollars of an income goes for the basics of Life...including rent, transportation and maybe some medical care expenses.

This is a stressful state, I'm sure, and could be partially relieved by:

(1) Raising the minimum wage to a more livable wage level.

(2) Stopping inflation.

(3) Establishing more fair rent practices.

(4) Single Payer Medical Programs - (State or Federal)

(5) Assistance for Education that would increase a Worker's earning ability.

(6) Zero income taxation for this earning level.

This just plain seems fair to me, for the reasons you have so ably illustrated. Thanks for a great post.

Comment by Scolos Narbarson on November 13, 2014 at 12:03am

Watching for the "new discussion".

Comment

What do you think? Leave a Comment. You must sign in to add comments!

 

Members (19)

 
 
 

Citizens

 


© 2017   Created by Citizens Party   Powered by

Citizens Party Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

About your image
Join our CircleFollow Us On TwitterJoin our CircleVisit Us On FacebookFollow Us Youtube
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger... Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...