Income tax's dedutions per taxpayers and dependents


#1

The income tax considerations per person were originally enacted to provide some tax relief for lower income earners; we can’t get blood from stones.

Unfortunately the consideration is a per capita amount of deduction from taxable income rather than a credit applied to the income tax itself.

Due to income tax’s progressive rates, the current per capita considerations grant exceedingly greater the amounts of benefits to wealthier taxpayers. Middle income earners derive much lesser benefits and the lowest income taxpayers derive little or no benefits from the per-capita tax consideration.

I’m a populist that advocates the deduction should be a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income. The amount of per-capita tax credit should be revenue neutral to our current regulations and that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

This revenue neutral tax modification grants greater tax relief to lower income tax payers without increasing our tax rates.


#2

No matter how many times you copy and paste this drivel you are still advocating more welfare.

The poor pay ZERO income tax now, qualifying them for a tax credit is just welfare.

You cannot give “tax relief” to people who have NO TAX BURDEN to begin with, they are already “relieved” as much as they can be.


#3

We should do away with all deductions and credits, period.

First, income tax should not exist at alll, as sales tax is superior because it is completely optional and also encourages saving.

This is how income tax should work: At the end of the year, you are required to pay a percent of your income into the government. Everyone pays the same rate and the government does not make any collections on it until the end of the year, when you pay exactly one time. Everyone could be on a different tax schedule so that not everyone would be paying the same month, so the tax collection agency* could have 1/12th the employees to process all of the returns. Employers would be required to give you the option of receiving two checks, one of only the income tax money and one of your actual salary and you could do whatever you wanted with the income tax check until your tax schedule came up and you had to pay.

*There would be no IRS, states would be responsible for collecting the income tax and turning it into the government. When the federal government refused to give money back to the states properly, such as with highway funding when you don’t pass laws liberals in the east agree with and obamacare, then the states could just not send the federal government tax revenues.

This rule should even be incorporated into the new tax system. States should only be required to send the money for the percent of the federal budget spent on defense and if the state government wants to veto federal law, they simply just don’t send the tax money to enforce it. It would be the perfect way to maintain the state powers that are obviously expressed to be much greater than the federal power in the US constitution.

The reason that the states have to send money for defense is because the reason the states banded together as one nation to begin with was for purposes of the common defense and the common defense is weakened greatly if there are non-contributing members.

Everything else the federal government does is absolutely meaningless and actually takes away from our economic capability.


#4

RET423, In taxable year 2010 the per capita of exemption s is $3,650 per capita.

Those deductions from taxable incomes are worth $12,775for each exemption to a taxpayer in the 35% TAX BRACKET. It’s only worth $401 per capita to taxpayers in the 11% bracket. It’s worth even less or nothing for many of our working poor who pay income taxes.

This proposal will decrease the taxes of income tax payers with less than median adjusted gross incomes. It will increase the taxes of those with greater than median adjusted gross incomes. The proportion of a taxpayer’s decrease or increase relative to their adjusted gross income is inversely related to the gross adjusted income.

Note that there are as many income tax PAYERS below as there are above the annual median gross adjusted income and this proposal’s revenue neutral.

Because within this proposal all taxpayers deduct the same amount per exemption from their income taxes, lower income earners gain a significant tax saving relative to their incomes and the amounts of tax increase for higher earners are significantly less consequential.

Respectfully, Supposn


#5

GT7, I’m a proponent of a general consumption tax replacing our income taxes to whatever extent that’s feasible.

An intelligent consumption tax is superior to an intelligent income tax system; (our current system of income taxes ain’t all that intelligent).
But we now have a federal system of income taxes and we don’t have a federal general consumption tax.

To whatever extent we improve our income tax system the improvements would not and should not hinder our efforts to establish a federal consumption tax.

It’s to our best advantage to improve what we have until it’s completely replaced.

Respectfully, Supposn


#6

The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the U.S. pay ZERO income tax after the earned income tax credit and the per child tax credit. Most of those 50 percent actually get a “refund” check that is greater than their withholding’s due to these “credits/welfare checks”.

You can selectively choose elements of the tax code all you want but you cannot change the fact that the lower 50 percent of wage earners pay ZERO income tax right now.

And you have the entire thing backwards anyway.

YOU are not “entitled” to one penny of another mans earnings.
Your desire to steal from those whose only crime is being successful makes you a Communist, not a “compassionate person”.

And your declarations about “revenue neutral” are supposed to make this “class warfare, steal more from the neighbor you hate” mentality more appealing?

If you Liberals spent half the time working that you do trying to steal from those you are jealous of you would have more than enough “income” and some fundamental character to boot.


#7

GT7, you wrote about income taxes as if it only concerns wages and salaries.

One of the major (if not the primary) cause of our income tax inequities is due to progressive tax rates.

We have tax loop holes created to remedy inequities caused by enactment of prior tax loop holes which can eventually be traced back to the inequities caused by progressive tax rates.

It’s politically and financially unfeasible to increase rates for lower income earners and it’s politically and economically unfeasible to preferentially decrease rates for higher income earners.

Additionally there’s the complexity of determining an enterprise’s actual net income. You haven’t talked to tax attorney if you’re of the opinion that’s a simple question. Income taxes are filed by enterprises themselves and additionally those enterprises incomes and expenses are very often integral to individuals’ income taxes.

I agree with that generally it’s the customers that eventually pay commercial enterprises’ taxes. But if there were no corporate income taxes, entrepreneurs would live upon their expense accounts and pay almost no income taxes.
Their spending would be almost completely unaccountable.

Similarly that also occurs when tax rates become severely confiscational. That’s what occurred during and just After the Second World War. Due to 90% tax rates executives were spending 10 cent dollars for nightclub entertaining.
Until we’re able to eliminate all income taxes, both our individual and corporate tax systems must be improved.

Respectfully, Supposn


#8

Ret423, I did not write of all income earners but rather of all “income tax PAYERS”.

Note that there are as many income tax PAYERS below as there are above the annual median gross adjusted income and this proposal’s revenue neutral.

You have selective reading? You simply change the words so you’re arguing against non-existent positions?

This proposal would cut taxes for all income tax “PAYERS” with less than the median annually adjusted gross incomes. This proposal is revenue neutral.

Respectfully, Supposn


#9

So what?

You are still advocating an increase on taxes for the income group that is already paying the lions share of taxes now. It is irrelevant if you think this would be “revenue nuetral” on paper.

This “class warfare” tax theory is what it causing businesses that CREATE JOBS to leave America or at the least lock down all their revenue instead of investing it in ways that grow the economy.

You want more of the same philosophy that has destroyed the American economy. You are advocating the use of government force to take property from its rightful owners and give it to those with no moral claim to it.

It is not yours, you have no right to steal it.


#10

Taxes are irrelevant. Adjust this, change that and you still have the root of the problem, over spending. No matter what the revenue from taxes is the idiots in DC will always find a way to spend it, and more. Mostly on programs that will exceed their projected budgets before the sitting President gets out of office.


#11

Taxes are irrelevant. Adjust this, change that and you still have the root of the problem, over spending. No matter what the revenue from taxes is the idiots in DC will always find a way to spend it, and more. Mostly on programs that will exceed their projected budgets before the sitting President gets out of office.

No, the tax system is absolutely integral to how much money the government can spend, especially if there is a balanced budget requirement.

I guarantee that the states with income tax spend more than the states with only sales tax. Sales tax varies greatly depending on tourism, car sales and in some states, by the sales of non-food items, which decrease in sales at a rate faster than income typically falls.

GT7, you wrote about income taxes as if it only concerns wages and salaries.

One of the major (if not the primary) cause of our income tax inequities is due to progressive tax rates

Yes, obviously there needs to be a flat tax.

There needs to be a flat tax with no deductions of any kind, then everyone has to pull their own weight.

If there is any advantage of income taxes over sales taxes, it would be that the first $10,000 could be exempted from an income tax for everyone, and everything else would be taxed.

Also, anyone who lives in state housing or on food stamps, should be required to surrender all of the rest of their income.

I’m tired of seeing people in state housing with big screen TVs and xboxes.


#12

Not so long as they continue to have the attitude that they can just borrow any money they need to make up a shortfall. No matter how much revenue you give them it will not be enough. If memory serves the last time revenues went up and spending actually went down was under Coolidge. Since then every increase of revenue has been offset with increased spending. You find your Utopian tax schedule, and Washington will find a way to outspend it.

And Amen to the second I highlighted.


#13

Forgive me. I forgot about the Clinton juggling and short term bonds. Also there was a couple blips under Truman and Ike. Except for a couple of years, tax receipts have steadily gone up and spending has kept pace ahead of it.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary