Argument FOR Flat Tax.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
In 1969 congress had hearings because some very rich people using the tax laws and good attorneys didn't pay any taxes. Outraged they passed the Alternative Minimum Tax in order to restore fairness. Be careful when you wish for any easy fix through the law especially for taxes, you might get it.




Alternative Minimum Tax 101
The AMT is meant for the rich, but it's the scourge of the middle class. Here's why.
November 10, 2005: 9:33 AM EST
By Katie Benner, CNN/Money staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Maybe you've managed to ignore the recent spate of tax-reform stories, but that doesn't mean you'll dodge the Alternative Minimum Tax or its higher tax bite.

The AMT system comes with a completely different set of rates and deduction rules. People pay it only if their AMT tax amount is higher than their traditional taxes. Translation: if you're paying the AMT, you are by definition paying higher taxes.

The system created to make sure the uber-rich didn't dodge the tax bullet is under fire because it's now affecting middle-class Americans. And reforming it could mean increased tax payments for everyone.

The problem? What defined uber-rich in 1969, when the AMT was first enacted, has never been adjusted for inflation. That means what made you affluent back then doesn't now -- but you're still taxed like it does.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center says the AMT will hit 3.6 million out of the nation's 131 million taxpayers filing for tax year 2005 (filed in early 2006), and could affect 31 million by 2010 if nothing is done.

To give you a sense of just who might get caught, this year only 1.8 percent of married couples with two kids and an adjusted gross income between $75,000 and $100,000 will be subject to AMT. Next year, that number jumps to 73.4 percent.

A tale of two systems
Under the regular IRS rules, you start with your gross income and subtract deductions like state taxes you paid, and exemptions like child credits. Eventually, you arrive at your taxable income.

Under AMT rules, you still start with your gross income, but many of the usual deductions and exemptions are disallowed. Suddenly, your taxable income is a lot higher.

Even though some deductions still stand, including those for mortgage-interest and charitable donations, some key breaks are lost. They include:


state and local income taxes and property taxes

unreimbursed business expenses

child-tax credits

tax-preparation fees

legal fees

home-equity loan interest
Even though the highest tax rate under the AMT -- 28 percent -- is lower than that in the regular tax system -- 35 percent -- AMT victims are paying more because they're paying on a greater amount of taxable income.

Short of moving to a low-tax state like, say, Texas, said Len Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, there's not a lot you can do to avoid AMT's clutches.

Exemptions and phase-outs
In trying to determine tax liability under AMT, you do get to exempt a certain amount of income from your calculations.

The problem is that the exemptions granted under the AMT have not kept pace with inflation -- while the average paycheck has. For instance, in 1982, the exemption for married couples filing joint was $40,000. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $82,000 today.

Currently, the exemptions are only $58,000 for married couples filing jointly and $40,250 for singles. And they would be even lower if Congress every year did not vote through a "patch."

Really high earners may not even get the full exemption since it is phased out above certain income levels.

The phase-out for married couples filing jointly begins at $150,000 (after the deductions that are allowable). The deduction shrinks by 25 cents for every dollar earned above that amount until finally, at $382,000, there is no exemption at all.

Who gets burned?
By law, everyone who files taxes is obligated to figure out whether they have to pay AMT, and they are prompted to do so on line 44 of Form 1040.

There, taxpayers are referred to the AMT worksheet. If the taxable income on the worksheet is higher than the taxable income on the 1040, you are subject to AMT and must fill out the special AMT Form 6251.

But the 12-line worksheet and Form 6251 can be daunting, and 75 percent of AMT payers hire a professional to do their returns, according to the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform.

"The first time most people hear about the Alternative Minimum Tax is when they get a letter from the IRS saying that they still owe money," said the Tax Policy Center's Burman.

So how do you know if you'll be one of the unlucky?

If your total deductions and exemptions under the normal tax code come close to the AMT exemption, you want to be on the lookout for the AMT, said Tom Ochsenschlager, vice president of taxation with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Also be on the lookout if your adjusted gross income changes dramatically because of:


a lot of itemized deductions

high local and state tax deductions

child exemptions

a mortgage deduction
Then it may be time to get some professional help or some good tax software.


 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
The problem is borrowing AND spending by this President and the Republican Congress.

They all do... Sadly.

You would think out of 300,000,000+ people we could find a few smart ones.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
A reduction in taxes would bolster business growth, which I feel is an expense our gov't should allow, at least temporarilly. If business and employment increase in huge proportions, then the taxes could be eased back in, once a good economic recovery has happened. Let's just give all US citizens a tax free year. Woot!

Before we can even talk about lowering taxes, the budget has to be under control. It's easy to be for low taxes, it's harder to actually decrease spending.



ANd there is one of the problems with the current tax system. Since a very small portion of the population pays most of the federal taxes, there is very little incentive to control spending. People are voting themselves the treasury as most are not paying for the cost of goverment. Flatten the taxes and this problem will alleviated to some extent.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,111
926
126
When I owned a home, I used to get tax returns of as much as $15000. Now for the past 5 years, since renting, we've owed every year. The bottom line, is even though, we've made more money, much more, we seem to pocket much less. For 4 years, we were simply not able to buy a home. Now, with the prices here, I don't want to be strapped to the kind of payment it would take, here in CA.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
When I owned a home, I used to get tax returns of as much as $15000. Now for the past 5 years, since renting, we've owed every year. The bottom line, is even though, we've made more money, much more, we seem to pocket much less. For 4 years, we were simply not able to buy a home. Now, with the prices here, I don't want to be strapped to the kind of payment it would take, here in CA.

getting that much money back means that you should fire your accountant. Why are you giving the government such a large interest free loan. You should have withheld less. There is an online calculator on the irs website that can give you guidance on how many witholdings to take.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree

nice reactionary but did you bother to read either the document you linked or my post?

i am not for "degressive" tax schemes but "REGRESSIVE".

and as to the poor not paying taxes, they are pretty much exempt from taxes now anyway.

he goes on and on about special interests and i made no mention of them whatsoever.

you are just reacting to the term "flat tax" without thinking.

No, I have thought about a flat tax. Awhile ago I would have probably advocated it. Now, I would never advocate it. One thing about our tax code is that it has loopholes. Loopholes are wonderful because they let people keep more of their money. Eliminate the loopholes and increase your tax slavery. It is as simple as that.

:roll:

tax slavery? :roll:

we are part of a democracy. we choose to remain a part of it. as parts of that democracy, we have certain obligations.

sure loopholes allow some people to keep more of their money but others pay more.

So at what point do I get to rescind my consent to this hegemonic tax situation?
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree

nice reactionary but did you bother to read either the document you linked or my post?

i am not for "degressive" tax schemes but "REGRESSIVE".

and as to the poor not paying taxes, they are pretty much exempt from taxes now anyway.

he goes on and on about special interests and i made no mention of them whatsoever.

you are just reacting to the term "flat tax" without thinking.

No, I have thought about a flat tax. Awhile ago I would have probably advocated it. Now, I would never advocate it. One thing about our tax code is that it has loopholes. Loopholes are wonderful because they let people keep more of their money. Eliminate the loopholes and increase your tax slavery. It is as simple as that.

:roll:

tax slavery? :roll:

we are part of a democracy. we choose to remain a part of it. as parts of that democracy, we have certain obligations.

sure loopholes allow some people to keep more of their money but others pay more.

people like Dissipate want all the benefits from living in a civilized, well-ordered society funded by tax payers, but they don't want to have to pay their share.

Right, because civilization as we know it would end if we didn't have a hegemonic tax state.

The state is the last line of defense for all of civilization! We really aren't human you know, without the IRS.

BTW, what in the world is a 'fair share?'

I want no such 'society' funded by taxpayers. I encourage bringing about a world with no taxes, paid by anyone at anytime for any reason.
 

HGC

Senior member
Dec 22, 1999
605
0
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree

nice reactionary but did you bother to read either the document you linked or my post?

i am not for "degressive" tax schemes but "REGRESSIVE".

and as to the poor not paying taxes, they are pretty much exempt from taxes now anyway.

he goes on and on about special interests and i made no mention of them whatsoever.

you are just reacting to the term "flat tax" without thinking.

No, I have thought about a flat tax. Awhile ago I would have probably advocated it. Now, I would never advocate it. One thing about our tax code is that it has loopholes. Loopholes are wonderful because they let people keep more of their money. Eliminate the loopholes and increase your tax slavery. It is as simple as that.

 

HGC

Senior member
Dec 22, 1999
605
0
0
Originally posted by: HGC
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree



"and as to the poor not paying taxes, they are pretty much exempt from taxes now anyway."


Sorry about the previous post, I meant to quote just the above line.

One of the things I like most about the flat tax is that it would be a better deal for poorer people. Tax costs are embedded in the prices of consumer goods. Eliminating the billions in yearly tax compliance costs for corporations, and eliminating economically bad but tax-wise business decisions would make goods and services cheaper and better for everyone. That affects the poor the most.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
How is removing different tax rates for income levels going to prevent people from cheating on their taxes.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
A reduction in taxes would bolster business growth, which I feel is an expense our gov't should allow, at least temporarilly. If business and employment increase in huge proportions, then the taxes could be eased back in, once a good economic recovery has happened. Let's just give all US citizens a tax free year. Woot!

Before we can even talk about lowering taxes, the budget has to be under control. It's easy to be for low taxes, it's harder to actually decrease spending.



ANd there is one of the problems with the current tax system. Since a very small portion of the population pays most of the federal taxes, there is very little incentive to control spending. People are voting themselves the treasury as most are not paying for the cost of goverment. Flatten the taxes and this problem will alleviated to some extent.

I don't know about that. The statistics would suggest that the bulk of federal taxes are paid by a fairly small percentage of the population, but the cost of taxes to each individual is relative, not absolute. In other words, it's about percentage of income paid, not percentage of total contribution. Even with a flat tax, a majority of the taxes will still be paid by a minority in the higher income brackets, as 10% of $3,000,000 is a lot more than 10% of $30,000. It may be true that the rich will finance most of the cost of government, but that only seems fair, as they have benefited the most from being here. And in any case, the middle class pays a lot of taxes as well, maybe they don't contribute the same dollar amount as the rich, but that doesn't mean the cost to them is any less.

In any case, arguments for a flat tax always seem to leave out of the concept of disposable income. That is, 10% of income is a lot more difficult to afford if you make $30,000 per year than if you make $300,000 or $3,000,000. Yes, a flat tax rate would be fair in an absolute sense, but only if you look at gross income, not net income after paying for food, housing, etc. Lowering the tax percentage for the rich and raising it for the poor will not be as "fair" as you might think. Of course "fairness" in flat tax proposals always seems to be examined from the perspective of the rich, so maybe that's why this is being missed.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: charrison
Actually we should tax all income equally with no exceptions. This would leave us with a modest 10% tax, which is affordable by all.

Do you think 10% would be enough? We have a massive deficit, corporate welfare, wars and a whole lot of other expensive things to think about.

When low income people actually paid tax spending would go down in a flash.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree

nice reactionary but did you bother to read either the document you linked or my post?

i am not for "degressive" tax schemes but "REGRESSIVE".

and as to the poor not paying taxes, they are pretty much exempt from taxes now anyway.

he goes on and on about special interests and i made no mention of them whatsoever.

you are just reacting to the term "flat tax" without thinking.

No, I have thought about a flat tax. Awhile ago I would have probably advocated it. Now, I would never advocate it. One thing about our tax code is that it has loopholes. Loopholes are wonderful because they let people keep more of their money. Eliminate the loopholes and increase your tax slavery. It is as simple as that.

:roll:

tax slavery? :roll:

we are part of a democracy. we choose to remain a part of it. as parts of that democracy, we have certain obligations.

sure loopholes allow some people to keep more of their money but others pay more.

people like Dissipate want all the benefits from living in a civilized, well-ordered society funded by tax payers, but they don't want to have to pay their share.

That's the one thing he has in common with the wealthy and well connected in this country.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: charrison
Actually we should tax all income equally with no exceptions. This would leave us with a modest 10% tax, which is affordable by all.

Do you think 10% would be enough? We have a massive deficit, corporate welfare, wars and a whole lot of other expensive things to think about.

When low income people actually paid tax spending would go down in a flash.

I doubt it, since the poor have little voice in government.
 

NJDevil

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
952
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: EatSpam
I'd only support a flat tax on three conditions:

1. All income was taxed, including stock dividends, capital gains, etc. No Forbes-style shift all the taxation on the wage earners crap.

2. All income below 50K for singles and 100K for couples was tax-free.

3. All corporate profit below 100K was tax-free. Small businesses need to grow!


Actually we should tax all income equally with no exceptions. This would leave us with a modest 10% tax, which is affordable by all.

hehehehe. 10%, you are dreaming.

what is the federal budget for this year? 3 trillion dollars? gross gdp is what 12 billion?

do you honestly think 10% would cover that? never mind the state, municipal and county taxes.

a flat tax of around 10% on all income would be enough to replace the revenues from the current income tax code.

How so? I don't really have knowledge of our tax code, but I know that GDP is about 11 trillion and the budget last years was about 2.3-2.4 trillion. a 10% tax would net half that. THe government also took in 1.9 or so trillion dollars last year
 

NJDevil

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
952
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: charrison
Actually we should tax all income equally with no exceptions. This would leave us with a modest 10% tax, which is affordable by all.

Do you think 10% would be enough? We have a massive deficit, corporate welfare, wars and a whole lot of other expensive things to think about.

When low income people actually paid tax spending would go down in a flash.

What tax rate would you charge for those earning minimum wage?
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I disagree

nice reactionary but did you bother to read either the document you linked or my post?

i am not for "degressive" tax schemes but "REGRESSIVE".

and as to the poor not paying taxes, they are pretty much exempt from taxes now anyway.

he goes on and on about special interests and i made no mention of them whatsoever.

you are just reacting to the term "flat tax" without thinking.

No, I have thought about a flat tax. Awhile ago I would have probably advocated it. Now, I would never advocate it. One thing about our tax code is that it has loopholes. Loopholes are wonderful because they let people keep more of their money. Eliminate the loopholes and increase your tax slavery. It is as simple as that.

:roll:

tax slavery? :roll:

we are part of a democracy. we choose to remain a part of it. as parts of that democracy, we have certain obligations.

sure loopholes allow some people to keep more of their money but others pay more.

people like Dissipate want all the benefits from living in a civilized, well-ordered society funded by tax payers, but they don't want to have to pay their share.

That's the one thing he has in common with the wealthy and well connected in this country.

Riiight. How many wealthy people do you see advocating anarcho-capitalism? Please, just name one.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: zendari
When low income people actually paid tax spending would go down in a flash.

What tax rate would you charge for those earning minimum wage?

25% of the tax rate that Bill Gates plays. Everyone should contribute something.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: charrison
Actually we should tax all income equally with no exceptions. This would leave us with a modest 10% tax, which is affordable by all.

Do you think 10% would be enough? We have a massive deficit, corporate welfare, wars and a whole lot of other expensive things to think about.

When low income people actually paid tax spending would go down in a flash.

What tax rate would you charge for those earning minimum wage?



The same rate as everyone else. IF they are not contributing to treasury, they spending will continue unabated.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: EatSpam
I'd only support a flat tax on three conditions:

1. All income was taxed, including stock dividends, capital gains, etc. No Forbes-style shift all the taxation on the wage earners crap.

2. All income below 50K for singles and 100K for couples was tax-free.

3. All corporate profit below 100K was tax-free. Small businesses need to grow!


Actually we should tax all income equally with no exceptions. This would leave us with a modest 10% tax, which is affordable by all.

hehehehe. 10%, you are dreaming.

what is the federal budget for this year? 3 trillion dollars? gross gdp is what 12 billion?

do you honestly think 10% would cover that? never mind the state, municipal and county taxes.

a flat tax of around 10% on all income would be enough to replace the revenues from the current income tax code.

How so? I don't really have knowledge of our tax code, but I know that GDP is about 11 trillion and the budget last years was about 2.3-2.4 trillion. a 10% tax would net half that. THe government also took in 1.9 or so trillion dollars last year

The amount taken in the income tax would e roughly equal to about 10% of gdp. On top of that only about 40% of all income qualifies for the income tax because of deductions and exceptions. This results in larger marginal income rates on a small portion of income. I will dog up the article on this.
 

Generator

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
793
0
0
Net Revenues for the IRS

2004 - 1,738,702,169,000
2003 - 1,650,372,248,000
2002 - 1,732,715,156,000
2001 - 1,874,998,696,000
2000 - 1,900,329,406,000
1999 - 1,716,817,761,000
1998 - 1,617,014,912,000
1997 - 1,482,163,171,000
1996 - 1,376,100,629,000
1995 - 1,269,640,535,000

GDP basis should not be considered.



 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
i could live with those conditions. but i think i might lower the income level a bit.

2a. all income below 30K for singles and 60k for couples.

leave small business one alone.


i agree, more money in the hands of the many will greatly improve the economy vs more money and hte hands of a few.

30k and 60k are very fair for single/married tax cut off, i made 27k last year working as a graduate student and working weddings at this catering place (yes i work 7 days per week, most weeks) i got a $2200 tax refund because i payed my wife's tuition and she does not work full time like i do. haveing not to pay taxes would put ~$200 back in my check every month would be great i might even be able to get rid of my second job. medical and dental bills are killing me right now, i actually for the first time had to take out a college loan the other week to pay them :frown:

i'd be alright with this tax system as long as there was still no tax on food, because other than food i really can't afford anything else except gas and the occational movie
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
The flat tax proposal is a ponsy scheme to shift the tax burden to the middle and upper middle class. Any flat tax proposal is going to take 30%+ of the average wage earner's income while dropping taxes on the high dollar earners significantly. I've seen more bogus figures and assumptions is supporting these proposals than practically any other.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |