Comments on: How About a 4.3% Surtax on the “Rich” to Fix the AMT? http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/ A personal finance blog dedicated to discussing such topics as budgeting, asset allocation, 401K, IRA, cash flow, insurance, financial planning, portfolio management, and other areas in personal finance. Fri, 25 May 2012 00:18:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: GLM http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/comment-page-1/#comment-112470 GLM Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:07:56 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/#comment-112470 Joseph- It is written into HB 25 (the FairTax Bill) that the income tax is abolished FIRST. Anything else is just foolhearty! Brad- I believe the expert analysis (I've read a lot on the issue)that the economy would boom. Companys would be incentivised to relocate or stay here jobs would grow. wasted booking costs of the current tax system would be greatly eliminated. Joseph-
It is written into HB 25 (the FairTax Bill) that the income tax is abolished FIRST. Anything else is just foolhearty!

Brad-
I believe the expert analysis (I’ve read a lot on the issue)that the economy would boom. Companys would be incentivised to relocate or stay here jobs would grow. wasted booking costs of the current tax system would be greatly eliminated.

]]> By: Joseph http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/comment-page-1/#comment-112119 Joseph Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:24:06 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/#comment-112119 You actually think they would abolish the Income tax if they ever pass the Fairtax? If you do I have some ocean side property to sell you in Arizona. Come on we all know the government can't do anything right, but gain more power. You actually think they would abolish the Income tax if they ever pass the Fairtax? If you do I have some ocean side property to sell you in Arizona.

Come on we all know the government can’t do anything right, but gain more power.

]]> By: Brad http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/comment-page-1/#comment-112108 Brad Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:07:36 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/#comment-112108 My dad is a huge Fair Tax fan. I'm open to the idea, and I do think it's a "fair" form of taxation. My only concern is the potential econonmic effect of a large tax on new spending . . . it incentivizes spending less. While that's great from a personal finance perspective, it may not be so good in terms of the economy, which depends largely on Americans continuing to spend money. I don't know that we understand whether a change in behavior would occur or not . . . spending may even INCREASE since people will have more disposable income. That's my main concern though, and we need to make sure that such a wholesale change in taxation wouldn't adversely affect the economy. My dad is a huge Fair Tax fan. I’m open to the idea, and I do think it’s a “fair” form of taxation. My only concern is the potential econonmic effect of a large tax on new spending . . . it incentivizes spending less. While that’s great from a personal finance perspective, it may not be so good in terms of the economy, which depends largely on Americans continuing to spend money. I don’t know that we understand whether a change in behavior would occur or not . . . spending may even INCREASE since people will have more disposable income. That’s my main concern though, and we need to make sure that such a wholesale change in taxation wouldn’t adversely affect the economy.

]]> By: GLM http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/comment-page-1/#comment-112107 GLM Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:55:07 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/#comment-112107 I agree with Brad. Those who are open to a flat tax above the poverty limits need to look into the Fairtax. ( Fairtax.org ) It taxes everyone when they spend on new items only, and the really rich spend a lot more. It "prebates" the money you would spend on tax up to the poverty level so the poor are not harmed. In fact it eliminates the social security and medicare taxes so they don't pay that either . (Social security and medicare are very regressive. ) It will tax visitors and those others who operate outside our regular economy, such as those who are here illegally or operate business "off the books." also known as HR25 it is gaining bipartisan support. I agree with Brad. Those who are open to a flat tax above the poverty limits need to look into the Fairtax. ( Fairtax.org )

It taxes everyone when they spend on new items only, and the really rich spend a lot more. It “prebates” the money you would spend on tax up to the poverty level so the poor are not harmed. In fact it eliminates the social security and medicare taxes so they don’t pay that either . (Social security and medicare are very regressive. ) It will tax visitors and those others who operate outside our regular economy, such as those who are here illegally or operate business “off the books.” also known as HR25 it is gaining bipartisan support.

]]> By: Brad http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/comment-page-1/#comment-112104 Brad Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:56:06 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/#comment-112104 plonkee, Military/defense spending is and always will be important, whether the average joe thinks it is or not. Defense is the single most important thing (far and away) that any government does. There is no way an individual taxpayer should be able to choose not to give to the defense budget. I'm cool with a flat tax above the federal poverty limits. That way, each household gets to keep a certain dollar amount of their income tax-free, and if you make more than that, it is taxed at a flat rate. Some Americans will continue to pay no taxes at all, but most would . . . and we'd all pay the same rate. If the FPL for your household size is $17k and you make $60k, then you'll pay a flat tax on the difference. It's a major simplification of the federal income tax and punishes no one. plonkee,

Military/defense spending is and always will be important, whether the average joe thinks it is or not. Defense is the single most important thing (far and away) that any government does. There is no way an individual taxpayer should be able to choose not to give to the defense budget.

I’m cool with a flat tax above the federal poverty limits. That way, each household gets to keep a certain dollar amount of their income tax-free, and if you make more than that, it is taxed at a flat rate. Some Americans will continue to pay no taxes at all, but most would . . . and we’d all pay the same rate. If the FPL for your household size is $17k and you make $60k, then you’ll pay a flat tax on the difference. It’s a major simplification of the federal income tax and punishes no one.

]]> By: Dus10 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/comment-page-1/#comment-112101 Dus10 Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:48:21 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/#comment-112101 I am absolutely opposed to this. There comes a point where principle has to be the overriding factor. I know that the chances of this ever personally affecting me are slim to none, but theft is still theft, regardless of whether I do it, or whether I have the government do it. And with the amount of money they get every year, any tax increase is simply theft. I am absolutely opposed to this. There comes a point where principle has to be the overriding factor. I know that the chances of this ever personally affecting me are slim to none, but theft is still theft, regardless of whether I do it, or whether I have the government do it. And with the amount of money they get every year, any tax increase is simply theft.

]]> By: plonkee http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/comment-page-1/#comment-112089 plonkee Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:38:16 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/#comment-112089 One of the reasons that a flat tax is unhelpful to the poor is that there is a minimum amount of money that is required to live on. If you were even moderately wealthy, then a 10% tax rate wouldn't effect that, but if you were poor then it would. Would a tax-exempt portion plus an 11% option be so bad? Military protection should be no more mandatory than anything else - if people think its important then they'll have to choose to pay for it. If they don't think its important then they won't and after all, don't you have government for the people? One of the reasons that a flat tax is unhelpful to the poor is that there is a minimum amount of money that is required to live on. If you were even moderately wealthy, then a 10% tax rate wouldn’t effect that, but if you were poor then it would. Would a tax-exempt portion plus an 11% option be so bad?

Military protection should be no more mandatory than anything else – if people think its important then they’ll have to choose to pay for it. If they don’t think its important then they won’t and after all, don’t you have government for the people?

]]> By: Miguel http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/comment-page-1/#comment-111984 Miguel Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:46:11 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/#comment-111984 I think JLP and Foobarista make good points: 1) I see absolutely nothing unfair about a flat tax. In fact, why should income be taxed at all. Perhaps taxes should be more like subscription service - you check off the menu of optional services you'd like to subscribe to. Of course, some things, like military protection would be mandetory. 2) Ultimately, the people who get hurt by soak the rich policies are the nearly rich - not the real rich. As Foobarista says, the real rich have many ways of structuring their earnings to avoid/reduce taxes. Those loopholes will never be eliminated because the politicians know who butters their bread. I think JLP and Foobarista make good points:

1) I see absolutely nothing unfair about a flat tax. In fact, why should income be taxed at all. Perhaps taxes should be more like subscription service – you check off the menu of optional services you’d like to subscribe to. Of course, some things, like military protection would be mandetory.

2) Ultimately, the people who get hurt by soak the rich policies are the nearly rich – not the real rich. As Foobarista says, the real rich have many ways of structuring their earnings to avoid/reduce taxes. Those loopholes will never be eliminated because the politicians know who butters their bread.

]]> By: Foobarista http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/comment-page-1/#comment-111581 Foobarista Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:43:00 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/#comment-111581 As a practical matter, these stiff taxes on "the rich" won't get paid, since people at truly high income levels often can restructure their income so it either is something other than "income", or is paid overseas. This is why "soak the rich" taxes end up soaking only the "somewhat rich" who make enough so that some of their income is subject to the tax but not rich enough to afford the high-priced legal help to set up these things. Frankly, this is why, IMO, lots of "super rich" often don't bother opposing tax increases and may actively support them. They won't pay them, and supporting them makes them look like altruistic champions of The People. And they tend to be contemptuous of "strivers" who need lower tax rates to improve their economic status. As a practical matter, these stiff taxes on “the rich” won’t get paid, since people at truly high income levels often can restructure their income so it either is something other than “income”, or is paid overseas. This is why “soak the rich” taxes end up soaking only the “somewhat rich” who make enough so that some of their income is subject to the tax but not rich enough to afford the high-priced legal help to set up these things.

Frankly, this is why, IMO, lots of “super rich” often don’t bother opposing tax increases and may actively support them. They won’t pay them, and supporting them makes them look like altruistic champions of The People. And they tend to be contemptuous of “strivers” who need lower tax rates to improve their economic status.

]]> By: JLP http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/comment-page-1/#comment-111570 JLP Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:31:33 +0000 http://allfinancialmatters.com/2007/06/08/how-about-a-43-surtax-on-the-rich-to-fix-the-amt/#comment-111570 Andy, I don't see how a flat tax is unfair to the poor. A flat tax would be a percentage of income. If it is the same percentage for everyone, how is it unfair? Andy,

I don’t see how a flat tax is unfair to the poor. A flat tax would be a percentage of income. If it is the same percentage for everyone, how is it unfair?

]]>