- James from Florida
- Hialeah, FL
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
For every eligible taxpayer to choose what percentage of their total income, from a range of 5% - 100%, they wish to pay the federal govt.
On everyone's tax form that must be submitted in April, there should be a page where taxpayers are given the ability to choose what percentage of their total income for that year they wish to pay in taxes, ranging from 5% to 100%. On that same page, there should be a row of boxes to check off where each individual wants their portion of taxes to go for the following year. Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc. People will only be entitled to programs they have contributed to in the past, and not entitled to programs they have not. Everyone will pay something, even if it's only 5%, and anyone that wishes to pay more in taxes for the greater good will be free to do so. Since the program would have to be phased in gradually so as not to shock the revenue stream, the first year of implementation it should first be available to those in the lower brackets before gradually becoming available to those in the upper brackets in the years that follow.
Robert Winner 50+
Here is a alternative: Go back to a Constitutional government. The Feds are responsible for about four areas. Washington DC and federal workers everywhere would have to go out into the public sector where they are responsible to the public and would have to produce. I would looooooove to see that. Return the power to the states to self govern. Taxes from then on would either be very low or the states would have a milita that combined with other states would provide a defense force. In times of war we could nationalize.
It would not be that simple but it would not be very difficult either. Congress would be in session for about two weeks a year .... it would cut back on millionaires but what the heck. The state will pay your (reasonable) expenses for the two weeks and thats it buddy. It is called public service. Stand back I am on a roll ...... I would love to be the guy that kicked them off of the gravey train. LOL I have no fear ... I am old ....... no wage income ... and marked for OBama's Death Panel. What is to lose. Go getem James.
There is a lot of things to work out but it could be done.
Have a great day ....... Bob.
James from Florida
People do it all the time. You make $40,000 but you live like you make $20,000. Government can do it too.
Robert Winner 50+
Thanks for making my day.
Bob.
Henry Woeltjen 10+
Even if the tax code changes...I fear that will only be a distraction from the real concerns.
I would venture to say that 60 percent of the country...has never read a tax code or policy in their life.
edward long 100+
John Smith 30+
James from Florida
Henry Woeltjen 10+
Seniors
Students
Would you have our elderly pay income tax?
James from Florida
Robert Winner 50+
The tax scale does not ask for age. It ask for your income for the year. No Complaints.
Bob.
edward long 100+
John Smith 30+
Most of them pay more in other taxes as a percentage of their income than Mitt Romney does.
"The top 10% currently pay nearly 70% of all tax revenue."
No, they pay 70% of federal income taxes, they pay 50% of all federal taxes but their combined income is also 45% of all income. That's barely progressive and it gets worse when you look at the top 1% and especially the top 0.1% (the real rich), it then becomes regressive, that's even without accounting for the fact that they benefit more from public infrastructure and security. Then if you add local taxes... Things would get far worse if the rich started paying only 5%.
"(Police are a local thing)"
Why wouldn't the same rule apply to local taxes (and if not, you do realize the states may just increase taxes on the rich)? Also, other countries don't have states.
"Why would engineers, doctors etc. "die out" again? I didn't catch that part."
I thought I was very clear: 0 government dough going to education means most people won't be able to afford sending their kids to school, let alone higher education. You claim they don't use government assistance but they do: they used a lot to go through elementary and high school and colleges get most of their funding from government (including state level), while most students either take loans from the government (a bank would loan at such low interest rate to students), or get scholarships that are mostly funded by government.
How the hell would scolleges be able to lower tuition when they get less money from the federal government, are they going to pay professors minimum wage?
You and I are not rugged individuals, we need others to work with and they need us, to keep our living standard above bronze age level. Watch less faux news, read more history books.
James from Florida
As I said, they pay 70% of federal income taxes.
How do the top 1% benefit more from public infrastructure and security? Do rich people receive special publicy funded security and usage of roadways that I was not aware of?
Police are a local thing, my idea deals solely with the federal tax code, not municipal tax systems. Local officials are held more directly accountable for millage rates any way.
Where does the assumption that the government would get "0 dough" to education come from? As I said, each taxpayer will be able to select what they wish to fund. The Department of Education would be an option as well. And to be quite honest, most high performing doctors, engineers and the like do not use federal loans to get through school. More often than not, their tuitions are paid for either by their parents or through scholarships.
Despite all of that, let's deal with your hypothetical head-on. If the federal government suddenly had a shortage of educational funds, the state institutions would be forced to slash their tution rates to make them more affordable due to the demand loss. This is all macroeconomics 101.
Finally, rugged economic individualism is the very thing that elevated our living standard to the one in which we enjoy today. People pursuing economic opportunities forged the foundation of modern Western civilization. It's unfortunate you haven't learned that yet. In either case, economic liberation doesn't diminish commercial cooperation among the masses, redistributing wealth on the basis of "social justice" does.
Robert Winner 50+
Does your half include the 10 million or so illegals? Probally not as you did state eligable. They are just takers not givers.
Anyway great response.
Bob
Robert Winner 50+
I wish you well
Bob.
Krisztián Pintér 200+