Comments on: TaxCut Giveaway – How Would You Change the Tax Code?

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:13:37 +0000

Agree with Pinyo, some codes are income negative for IRS, for third parties and bothersome for the filer. Change made in 1986 requires filers claim every penny of interest earned on bank checking and savings accounts. Banks must provide customers and IRS with 1099-INT forms regardless of amount interest earned. Loss in manpower, equipment use, time, postage, etc, for banks and IRS cost taxpayers in long run with smaller interest returns, added filing complications and delays.
Nobody invests in bank checking and savings interest to get rich; it’s a place to put paychecks, rebates, tax returns, etc. for day to day transactions.
State and local codes are just as vulnerable to negative income requirements.

By: Randy Hughes-King

Randy Hughes-King — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:30:29 +0000

I know I’m way late, anyhow:

A. Tax Code
1. Code
a.The only alterable section of this code is “c” subsection of sections “2″ and “3″. The alteration is only allowed by citizen referendum.
b. These taxes are to take effect at the time of currency exchange.
1. Sales Tax
a. Sales is defined as an exchange of currency for anything other than labor.
b. Labor is defined as the efforts of a person.
c. Sales Tax: 5%
2. Income Tax
a. Income is defined as the exchange of currency for labor.
b. Labor is defined as the efforts of a person.
c. Income Tax: 5%
B. Tax Code Exemption
1. Government
a. Any exchange of currency with the government as a party or observer will not be taxed.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:57:15 +0000

I’d like to see a simplification of the progressive system we have that would start at one percent once you earn above a trailing retrospective 3 year average poverty line rounded up to the next $1000 and indexed by the regional consumer market basket indexes. Incrementing the tax one percent for every $5000 up to ten times the established regional poverty line base and level above that ceiling. The states would tax goods and services to fill the funding gaps as they do now but with federal caps on taxing “essentials” i.e. food, etc. They would be free to tax the crap out of things the states deemed luxury goods and service … afterall, we are the USA. There tax policy dreamed up in ten minutes or less … I’m sure there are many better ideas than the current system.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:57:34 +0000

I think you hit on it when you said: “disclose earnings.” There are a lot of people who deal in cash and won’t report anything to the IRS if possible.

And nothing wrong with moving up a tax bracket or two – it just means you are earning more money!

By: Night Runner

Night Runner — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:54:43 +0000

Like some of other posters before me, I would do away with the progressive method of taxation. It doesn’t seem to encourage people to earn more money – or at least to disclose their earnings to the IRS. Then again, I’m definitely biased on this issue, since I expect to go up a few several tax brackets in the not-so-distant future.

By: Julieanne

Julieanne — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:54:52 +0000

I’d institute a flat tax on everyone’s income, and call that good enough. We’re all tired of jumping through tons of hoops just to get our taxes paid…or to get out of paying our taxes!

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:53:43 +0000

David: I agree that mandatory e-filing would make it easier on the government and reduce errors, but it may be awhile before everyone has regular access to a computer. People are required to pay federal taxes on unemployment benefits... almost seems unfair, doesn't it? To everyone: Great comments! Good luck to everyone who entered!

By: David Aase

David Aase — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:46:13 +0000

I agree that a flat based tax on income would be idealistic, however it seems like too many people might abuse a system like that. It could be possible to take unemployment benefits and forgo paying taxes? That doesn’t seem right.

Our current tax code is on the right path, however their seem to be too many steps involved. Once everyone has access to a computer and the internet, make e-filing mandatory with no fees. That’s how I would change the current tax code.

By: RC@Thinkyourwaytowealth

RC@Thinkyourwaytowealth — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:30:00 +0000

I think the fairtax.org idea is a good one-taxing spending, not income, with rebates to those with very low incomes. How you would make that transition, though, does not seen so clear cut to me, but the current tax code is way too complicated-and not really fair either, and needs to be simplified.

By: Kim

Kim — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:12:45 +0000

Simple. Flat tax based on income only. Those making under the poverty level would pay no tax. Our current tax code has been hijacked to modify our behavior by tax incentives and penalties. Let’s eliminate that!