ashe

Underdog - I agree with you 100 percent. The way our corporate tax system works is ridiculous. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, American corporations already dodge paying $90 billion in federal taxes. In fact, some of the largest corporations pay lobbyists more than they pay in taxes.

It's also far too easy for corporations to move their profits off shore to tax havens, avoiding paying taxes all together.

Here's the other problem - out of the 34 countries in the OECD, America ranks first with a 39.1 percent corporate tax rate, compared to an OECD average of 24.1 percent.

This places smaller/honest corporations in a difficult position, because they can't afford the army of lobbyists (or don't want to) that larger corporations can, and often pay a disproportionally higher tax rate than their larger counterparts. We would be far better off if we lowered the corporate tax rate slightly, but actually enforced it y closing all of these loopholes.

As to our discussion about the income tax rate, I just feel like it's an important conversation, but of course the corporate tax rate plays a role. If our country could collect more from tax dodging corporations, then it wouldn't be necessary to collect as much in income tax, which is what my system would. Of course, I realize that it's not perfect.

Basking - You're absolutely right about that, so what's the best way to handle the fact that we have such a massive deficit? Well there are typically four ways to do that - you can either print money, borrow money, increase revenue, of decrease spending. We should discount the first two options. Printing more would inflate the currency, which disproportionately decreases the buying power for the lower and middle classes, and borrowing more would add to our debt.

The only option then is to either raise taxes or reduce spending, and both of those options suck in the middle of a slowly recovering recession. I really wouldn't want our taxes to increase, because I'm worried they are too high as is. But I also don't want to reduce spending which benefits the poor.

With this in mind, the best way to reduce spending would be to first reduce the amount of money we waste on inefficient bureaucracies. Programs, particularly DSS programs, can be wasteful unfortunately. So I think we would be far better off in treating the poor in the exact same way we treat the rich, but in an inverted way. If a person makes a high income, then they will have a tax deducted from each pay check. So why not do essentially the same - a person who receives a low income would would have a subsidy added to their paycheck, or receive a paycheck if they are unemployed.

I honestly think that would be the best way to handle most of the problems we are currently facing, while perhaps still balancing the federal budget and decreasing the wealth gap. It's a tall order, so that's why I'm proposing a more creative solution, and one that's hopefully more fair for everyone involved.

My idealistic number would be zero taxes. However, we currently don't collect enough to pay the items were are already committed to and must pay. Let alone the extra things we want like education programs and highways.

Toby were you to fix the cooperate tax system, the untaxed ship loads from china, you may not be having this discussion on tax brackets.

How about listing your ideal tax rates for each of the current income brackets, for both joint incomes and single filers, and also listing the deductions for children - like i did earlier lol

But if that's too much work, how about answering an even simpler question - under your ideal system, would you have the federal government collect more or less tax revenue? And what would your maximum tax rate be on the highest income bracket?

How about listing your ideal tax rates for each of the current income brackets, for both joint incomes and single filers, and also listing the deductions for children - like i did earlier lol

But if that's too much work, how about answering an even simpler question - under your ideal system, would you have the federal government collect more or less tax revenue? And what would your maximum tax rate be on the highest income bracket?

I like beer.

Are they married? Are they the sole earner? How many kids do they have? They own a home or rent? What's their mortgage and its amatorzation? Have they invested in any new technologies like renewable energies? Did they flip a home this year? How much of their income is from a straight salary? How much is from capital gains? Was there an inheritance?

You catching on yet? The world still ain't digital

Well it doesn't have to be a simple answer, break it down by tax bracket if you want -

Toby you have asked yet another question that has more verables then wrinkles on your grannies butt. Its like asking me how much liquor should I drink or how much should basking give your sister.

Let me come at this another way, because no one's going to answer those questions

How much should a person pay the federal government in taxes? and why?

Toby you must learn to think when you read what is written. Thats your thought for the day.

It's because there aren't any answers in the thread lol

I don't spoon feed. I teach you to fish

If you've answered the question, then copy it from the text in the thread. Go on, prove me wrong -

I've already given you the answers. I'm not going to go in circles with you

Lol I'll keep beating this dead horse until someone answers these questions:

How much assistance should a person draw from the government if they don't work?

Also, would you prefer incorporating a system like mine, or keep our current tax/welfare system?

These questions aren't impossible to answer, it just takes honesty and the will to strike a few keys -

Toby the question is first of all impossible to answer. You have been told over and over the flaws in your dreamed up system. Can anyone make that anymore clear?

Toby, how long you planning on beating this dead horse?

JESUS JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!

Lol this is unbelievable, how pathetic, how utterly nutless do you have to be to not answer such straightforward questions.

What you're doing is actually a common argumentative tactic - you're trying to steer the conversation in one direction, making assertions and asking questions of others without ever answering questions yourself - it's a way of hiding the ineptitudes of your own arguments -

By the way, you haven't really answered anything, especially not the question of "How much assistance should a person draw from the government if they don't work?" If you've answered that question, then copy it from the text of the thread - go ahead, I'll wait lol

The answers are in this thread. Try reading it