4 ms·
My ideal income tax structure would look like this: If you make under $25,000, you pay no income tax. Everyone else pays 20%. You receive tax breaks for disabi
by dkokelley 18y ago
My ideal income tax structure would look like this:
If you make under $25,000, you pay no income tax. Everyone else pays 20%. You receive tax breaks for disabilities, children, educational spending, and charitable donations. Corporations would be taxed at 30%, but owners could take profits without being double taxed. Corporations could also receive up to 50% tax breaks through charitable works and/or donations (provides tax incentive for community projects, being 'green', or donating to a cause).
It all seems reasonable to me. Maybe I'm missing something. This would also simplify the complicated and bloated tax code we currently have. It could also encourage more businesses and workers to move here, which would stimulate growth.
Note: I chose 20% because I saw somewhere else a chart that showed that the ultimate tax revenue the government took in regardless of tax rate over the past 50 years or so was 20% of GDP.
- divia 18y agoHere's the chart I'm pretty sure you're thinking of: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH556B_ranso_20080519194014.gif http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH556B_ranso_200... from the 2008 Wall Street Journal article titled "You Can't Soak the Rich": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html The phenomenon is called Hauser's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_Law and intelligent criticism of the chart can be found here: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2008/05/20/lying-with-charts-wsj-edition?rss=true http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2008/05/20/...
- dkokelley 18y agoYou sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks for bringing those articles up. I checked the last link you mentioned, and I wasn't really satisfied with the criticism. Maybe I just didn't understand the article, but it seemed to me that all the author said was "A lot of other tax rates balanced out the highest marginal tax rate shown in the curve." I would have liked to see an alternate conclusion instead of a simple refutation. But again, thank you very much for the links.