Thread: Pawlenty tax plan.

I don't necessarily agree with everything he says in regards to taxes, or anything else, but I do like the sound of this:

• The estimated 45 percent of U.S. households that did not pay income taxes in 2010 would see no change in their tax rates.
• Individuals would pay 10 percent tax on the first $50,000 of income. Couples earning $100,000 would also pay that rate.
• "Everything above that would be taxed at 25 percent," Pawlenty said.

Pawlenty proposes three-tier income tax system - Yahoo! News

I think the largest problem with our tax code is the complexity. The only people who have the time and money to figure out the holes are the wealthy, so the "common man" is often left holding the bag.

Who do you think pays most/all of the taxes now? Do you think people making $50k/yr are paying million dollar attorneys to make sure they pay as little tax as possible, or are they going to the tax service with the coolest commercials, or people dressed up on the street corners. You can be as progressive as you want, but when you are guess who will take advantage of the progression. My best bet is that people making over $50k/yr are not currently paying 25% or more in taxes, so if I am correct then this would actually provide more tax revenue than we currently collect with our progressive tax plan.

Also notice I even had the disclaimer about the rest of his plan(s).

Yes fov, tax the shit out of investment and small busness...seems like a flawless plan to rebound our economy...

Sent from my phone, because obviously I am not at home...using TapaTalk

I agree with not taxing an inheritance, that money was already taxed when it was earned. Taxing profit made on investment is just that taxing profit, see no problem there. It should just be added to your total income and taxed as such. I do support simplifying the tax code. Make it a fair percentage(on a tier system) and get rid of deductions and credits.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Oh, I agree with you about the wealthiest people also are the most likely to find loopholes, and I agreed that that needed to be changed. Badly. However, how do you know there won't be loopholes in his plan? And I doubt this plan would bring in more money because he is also proposing zero taxes on investments, dividends, etc. That's also, coincidently, where the extremely wealthy make most of their money from. So, essentially, he would remove any tax burden from the wealthiest people.

I think his income tax plan would be more effective than what we have now. I disagree with zero taxation on investments because that is basically another form of income, but I do feel it should be at a lower tax rate than income tax, maybe at the 10% rate he suggested. I am opposed to inheritance taxation all together. I realize it helps with the tax burden, but it is not "new" money, so I don't feel it should be taxed.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Who doesn't love a nice regressive tax? And also zero tax on investments, bank interest, stock dividends and inheritances? I'll agree that the tax system as it is right now can be overly complex and lead to a lot of loopholes, so I am definitely for revamping it. However I will never support a regressive tax and moving the tax burden onto the poor. Also, the amount of spending cuts that would have to be made to support that tax without an insane deficit would invariably end up negatively impacting pretty much only the poorer people.

Moving the tax burden onto the poor? How so? The poor have a tax burden of 0% or even less now. (Depending on how you define poor)

The only time you place the tax burden on the poor is when you raise taxes on companies that provide necessary goods and services to the poor.
The feel it when they buy things like food, clothes and gas. Business interests are not going to take a severe hit in profits to accommodate a raise in taxes, they will raise their price accordingly. When the poor are forced to pay more for the necessities in life then there is no disposable income for vacations, eating out, a movie or new car.

Things like bank interest and stock dividends are fair game, i see no problem in taxing a return on investment. Inheritance on the other hand is money that has already been taxed.... many times over im sure so im against taxing that.

And the spending cuts have to happen regardless.

Originally Posted by SpecOpsScott

Moving the tax burden onto the poor? How so? The poor have a tax burden of 0% or even less now. (Depending on how you define poor)

I highly doubt the poor have a tax burden of 0% of less, they still have to pay the medicare/SSI taxes (when employed) and still have to pay sales taxes in states that use it.

The tax the middle class has to pay is about the same as the rich (as of 07 I think, and not a lot has changed between then) when everything is added up right now, at 45%. Under the plan above, I'd fathom it'd likely still sit around the same number for those who do pay taxes, maybe a lower number by a bit, but still the middle class and rich would probably have the same rate in the end.