3 ms·

Yes simlified taxes - repeal the personal income tax and replace with consumption-based sales tax. No more W2 withholding, no more individual fed/state filing,

Yes simlified taxes - repeal the personal income tax and replace with consumption-based sales tax. No more W2 withholding, no more individual fed/state filing, no more deduction games, no need for tax prep sites. Maybe the sales tax would be zero rate for uncooked food at grocery stores.

mint2 3y ago
So enact a hugely regressive tax that hits poor people the hardest as a percent of income, while lets rich people accumulate obscene wealth tax free? That’s what funding everything with sales tax does.
- landemva 3y ago
  Poor people don't have mortgage interest deduction and other tax deduction acrobatics, so poor people are harmed today. And removal of paycheck W2 withholding would be a take home pay increase. The tax prep sites and government paper pushers would have to find something else to do for work. The corporate income tax could remain, if you like.
  - thrashh 3y ago
    That has nothing to do with the deductions they get now? If W2 withholding was removed, people who have more take home pay then go into debt when taxes were due.
    - landemva 3y ago
      To clarify, I suggest remove the personal income tax so there is no need for W2 withholding. Replace with a sales tax, with basic necessities having zero rate sales tax.
  - mint2 3y ago
    Poor people are harmed by the loopholes not the inherent principles, so instead of fixing the loopholes the proposal is to move a plan that inherently hurts poor people, no loop holes needed. Wow what a great plan.
jacquesm 3y ago
This would disproportionally hit the poor. And the rich would be laughing even harder because their tax rate would effectively drop to zero.
- landemva 3y ago
  The rich already laugh because their gains are not mostly W2 income. The rich already opted out.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    No reason to make it even worse. Some rich guy I know wanted to show me his art collection, a whole bunch of non-descript stuff that sold for an immense amount of money. All I could think was to encourage him to buy more art: his money would be in better hands if it flowed back into the world through the artists. Then I learned that it is just a speculative thing, that there is a whole industry around this and that the artists see almost nothing of the money. But the galleries, the 'connoisseurs', the auction houses and the brokers all make bank. And they too are rich people... quite frustrating. My grandmother was a walking collection of proverbs and one of the more pointy ones was 'the devil always shits on the larger heap'. I'm not sure if the meaning comes across in English but the gist is that once you're wealthy more wealth is pretty much guaranteed whereas the poor just get poorer.
- renewedrebecca 3y ago
  Then automatically give a tax credit to the poor. (yeah, I know how well that would go over in the US)
supernova87a 3y ago
Simplified taxes does not have to mean lower taxes. You're conflating 2 issues (or intentionally associating them). Removing loopholes, reducing the kinds of things that can be claimed without solid proof (or likelihood of needing to be proved, or complicated to prove), reducing the amount of paperwork that can create loopholes, etc. is part of simplifying. Removing personal deductions, a simple 1-step calculation, is not simplifying. And reducing tax rates is not necessary to simplify taxes. A graduated income tax is very simple. Think about it harder. Don't be intellectually lazy and just jump to cutting certain taxes because it would be "simpler". Unless that's your goal.
- landemva 3y ago
  >> Simplified taxes does not have to mean lower taxes. You're conflating 2 issues. When did I suggest lower taxes? I suggested sales tax increase which would offset removal of personal income tax.
  - supernova87a 3y ago
    You're implicitly implying that sales taxes would be lower than an income tax. Which they would not be (for most taxpayers), in order to raise the same amount of revenue.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Sales taxes are generally regressive. If you're poor you're paying a high percentage of your income on this sales tax. If you're not poor a much smaller percentage will be towards sales tax.
    - landemva 3y ago
      >> of your income Rich people have investments and that is not income for tax purposes if it is correctly set up. For many rich, they have escaped from W2 taxes on income. "Income" according to the personal income tax code of IRS. Poor working people, and middle class, have IRS income. The rich have investments and trusts and LLCs and loopholes.
rnk 3y ago
Consumption taxes are hugely regressive, and really hit poor people hard. This would make doing taxes easier and probably cheaper for well paid programmers (like many of us), and hit poor people hard. We need non-regressive taxes. California has high taxes but surprisingly is less regressive than many places. I say surprisingly because it's hard to overcome the power of wealthy people pushing tax rates down for themselves via political donation (such as is seen in the us federal tax system).

mint2 3y ago

So enact a hugely regressive tax that hits poor people the hardest as a percent of income, while lets rich people accumulate obscene wealth tax free? That’s what funding everything with sales tax does.

landemva 3y ago
Poor people don't have mortgage interest deduction and other tax deduction acrobatics, so poor people are harmed today. And removal of paycheck W2 withholding would be a take home pay increase. The tax prep sites and government paper pushers would have to find something else to do for work. The corporate income tax could remain, if you like.
- thrashh 3y ago
  That has nothing to do with the deductions they get now? If W2 withholding was removed, people who have more take home pay then go into debt when taxes were due.
  - landemva 3y ago
    To clarify, I suggest remove the personal income tax so there is no need for W2 withholding. Replace with a sales tax, with basic necessities having zero rate sales tax.
- mint2 3y ago
  Poor people are harmed by the loopholes not the inherent principles, so instead of fixing the loopholes the proposal is to move a plan that inherently hurts poor people, no loop holes needed. Wow what a great plan.

jacquesm 3y ago

This would disproportionally hit the poor. And the rich would be laughing even harder because their tax rate would effectively drop to zero.

landemva 3y ago
The rich already laugh because their gains are not mostly W2 income. The rich already opted out.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  No reason to make it even worse. Some rich guy I know wanted to show me his art collection, a whole bunch of non-descript stuff that sold for an immense amount of money. All I could think was to encourage him to buy more art: his money would be in better hands if it flowed back into the world through the artists. Then I learned that it is just a speculative thing, that there is a whole industry around this and that the artists see almost nothing of the money. But the galleries, the 'connoisseurs', the auction houses and the brokers all make bank. And they too are rich people... quite frustrating. My grandmother was a walking collection of proverbs and one of the more pointy ones was 'the devil always shits on the larger heap'. I'm not sure if the meaning comes across in English but the gist is that once you're wealthy more wealth is pretty much guaranteed whereas the poor just get poorer.
renewedrebecca 3y ago
Then automatically give a tax credit to the poor. (yeah, I know how well that would go over in the US)

supernova87a 3y ago

Simplified taxes does not have to mean lower taxes. You're conflating 2 issues (or intentionally associating them). Removing loopholes, reducing the kinds of things that can be claimed without solid proof (or likelihood of needing to be proved, or complicated to prove), reducing the amount of paperwork that can create loopholes, etc. is part of simplifying. Removing personal deductions, a simple 1-step calculation, is not simplifying. And reducing tax rates is not necessary to simplify taxes. A graduated income tax is very simple. Think about it harder. Don't be intellectually lazy and just jump to cutting certain taxes because it would be "simpler". Unless that's your goal.

landemva 3y ago
>> Simplified taxes does not have to mean lower taxes. You're conflating 2 issues. When did I suggest lower taxes? I suggested sales tax increase which would offset removal of personal income tax.
- supernova87a 3y ago
  You're implicitly implying that sales taxes would be lower than an income tax. Which they would not be (for most taxpayers), in order to raise the same amount of revenue.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Sales taxes are generally regressive. If you're poor you're paying a high percentage of your income on this sales tax. If you're not poor a much smaller percentage will be towards sales tax.
  - landemva 3y ago
    >> of your income Rich people have investments and that is not income for tax purposes if it is correctly set up. For many rich, they have escaped from W2 taxes on income. "Income" according to the personal income tax code of IRS. Poor working people, and middle class, have IRS income. The rich have investments and trusts and LLCs and loopholes.

rnk 3y ago

Consumption taxes are hugely regressive, and really hit poor people hard. This would make doing taxes easier and probably cheaper for well paid programmers (like many of us), and hit poor people hard. We need non-regressive taxes. California has high taxes but surprisingly is less regressive than many places. I say surprisingly because it's hard to overcome the power of wealthy people pushing tax rates down for themselves via political donation (such as is seen in the us federal tax system).