QFAC: Your Policy on Taxation

I would like to start a thread where all candidates can explain their policy on taxation. I do believe that this is probably the issue that matters the most to voters on ATS and in the real world.

Outlined below is my policy on taxation, each month on your wage packet a new system would be implemented allowing you to see exactly where you money from taxation goes.

Wage Based Taxation:
$0.00 to $6,000.00 USD – 0%
$6,000.00 to $20,000.00 USD – 10%
$20,000.00 to $50,000.00 USD – 25%
$50,000.00 to $100,000.00 USD – 35%
$100,000.00 to $1Million USD – 50%
$1 Million to $3 Million USD – 60%
Over $3Million and over 70%

To make this simple: Your first $6,000.00 USD is not taxable. Thus if you earn $24,000.00 you’d not be in the 25% bracket. You’d be in the 10% bracket, as $24,000.00 USD - $6,000.00 USD is $18,000.00 USD. This means that someone earning $26,000.00 USD would in fact only pay $2000 dollars per-year in taxation prior to children and National Health Costs.

You will then have taxation based on several factors:
Number of Children – For every child that a parent has they will have to pay a set amount to put their child through state education. Say for example $1,000 USD per-year. This is of course an estimate. In the case of Split Parent Families (where the mother and father are separated) this will be split 50/50 between each parent.

National Health Service – Each adult (anyone over the age of 21) will pay a portion of wages into a National Health fund. This will work exactly how private healthcare does, in my previous and early research I found that it would cost roughly $200 USD a year to run a public healthcare system in the United States of America. Anyone aged 70 or less than 21 would be able to gain Health Care for free.

Unemployment Tax – 1% of your wage will be placed into an “unemployment fund”. This already falls into the amount that you are taxed

There will be a local tax, which is a small percentage split equally among households that will involve the maintaining of roads, collection of waste, etcetera.

Income Taxation will fund everything else that is needed by the Government.

For example it will include the Military who will be redesigned: The Militaries primary purpose will be defence of the Nation, money will go into researching things such as increased radars, anti-missile systems, anti-ship systems and so on and so fourth. Resulting in a Nation that won’t be attacked.

Social Systems as: Housing for the homeless, re-education for homeless people who live in these houses and an agency based around finding them work in factories, on farms and so on and so fourth. With the idea being to make it so they can “find their feet” once more and move back into society instead of living on the street.

In the early years, the Government will also go about spending money on re-designing flats, houses and so on and so fourth. With all new Government based housing initiatives taking into account things such as global warming. With wind speeds of property locations, access to light for solar panels and so on and so fourth taken into account. Also a large percentage of the money will go into wind farms in areas of the U.S.A. that’s not heavily populated by people.

If anyone would like to ask me anything specific than feel free to do so. These numbers are still in the "first stage" but I though I would publish them now and allow them to be there for the debate.

The tax code in this country has become a behemoth that has little oversight by any branch of the government. We as a society need to chainge this.

I do believe that the government should have the ability to raise taxes and it should be a fair system aproximatly 15% of your anual income should be paid to taxes. and thats it.

Nice simple and completely fair, IMO.

Well, I was actually going to write out an entire system of how I think
it should be, but than I looked at the OP's (Odium) idea on the matter,
and I realized basically mine is the same thing, except for sales tax.

So, I'll explain my idea on sales tax.



Sales tax would be split up into four categories of goods, and the profits
from each would go to different areas of the government.

Before I note go further though, I would like to say that I will work to
set up a system where-in an annual report is created, and the taxes
are set for each year based on that report.


1. General goods, clothes, consumer electronics etc., this would have
a sales tax of up to, but no more than 15% depending on financial
reports.

Tax revenues from this would go into various government programs.
There would be an option on what program(s) you want it to go into,
though you would'nt have to decide if you did'nt want to.


2. Drugs (as in pot, stereroids, meth etc., which I would work to le-
galize), fast food and things that are generally major health risks
would be taxed in two tiers.
-A. Things that are not that bad for you, but can be if abused or
consumed to often, like cheeseburgers (fast-food kind) and soft drugs,
these would have a 3-7% taxation rate depending on the aforemen-
tioned annual financial report.
-B. Things that are very bad for you, unless done in small quanti-
ties more than once a month, this category includes hard drugs like
Heroin and Meth, as well as some foods and consumables that are so
incredibly bad for you, it's mind boggling you would even consume
them in the first place.
These would have a taxation rate of 10-20% based on the annual
financial report.

Tax revenue from this would go into helping funding the social health-
care system and substance abuse and (fair) education programs.


3. Weapons/guns, taxation on these would depend on both what kind
of weapon/gun it is, but would never exceed 10%, the taxation amount
would be decided on by the annual financial report.

Tax revenue from this would go into military funding.
You would be given the choice to choose what you wanted it to go to,
that is what branch, or into R&D.


4. Products that are bad for the environment..
Basically any product that produced negative effects on the environ-
ment, such as vehicles not up to the government required standard
of fuel efficiency.
The taxation amount would be between 15-30% and would be based
on the annual financial report.

Tax revenue from this would go into environmental protection programs,
clean energy and living R&D and into incentive programs to encourage
people to buy cleaner technology.

I shall do my best to keep this short; I am opposed to the income tax and see it as a tool for the wealthiest 1% to subjegate the other 99%, and also the product of the sham that we have come to know as the Federal Reserve.

1. The first step I would take with the income tax is to end the tyrannical rule of the Federal Reserve by revoking their charter.
2. I would ensure that all monies owed them would be paid in as fast a manner as possible, to include the withholding of tax refunds to pay down that deficit in a timely manner.
3. I would then institute a transition back to the gold standard which would give the US dollar actual value and allow it to compete with the euro.
4. Once all debts are paid and the transition begins, I would restructure the tax code in a simple manner: Every household with an income of less than $100,000 dollars pays a flat rate of 10%. Any household between $100,000 and $200,000 will pay 25%. Any household between $200,000 and $1 million will pay 35%. And any household over $1 million will pay 50%. The goal being that the higher earners bear the brunt.

Is this solution perfect. No! But it is far more fair and equitable than the current cluster-bleep!

Originally posted by Odium
I would like to start a thread where all candidates can explain their policy on taxation. I do believe that this is probably the issue that matters the most to voters on ATS and in the real world.

In brief, I advocate a phased transition to a "Federal Consumption Tax", with simple, but varying levels of taxation determined by a non-partisan council of economic and accounting experts, culminating in the complete disolution of all other Federal Taxes.

In full, here is the plan.

First, establish a council of recognized and reputable economists and accountants. These are the only people qualified to wade through over 17,000 pages of existing tax codes, crunch numbers on the tax revenue currently being collected, figure out what percentages would be neccessary to at very least match the existing Federal programs, and draw up a phased plan of lowering Federal Income Tax to match the rise of the Federal Consumption Tax.

In essence, the Consumption Tax would only apply to goods and services, and would be paid by the purchaser. There would be four levels of Consumption Tax:

Neccessities - Includes items like food, medicine, and housing that are deemed essential to daily survival, would be taxed the lowest, or possibly even not at all.

Luxuries - Includes items like personal electronics, jewelry, movies, and other items not deemed essential to daily survival would be the "average" tax. Most goods and services fall under this category.

Moderations - Includes items like liquor, tobacco, and other items previously considered to be "Sin Taxes". The concept of this level of taxation is to either discourage consumption of these products or at least raising enough money to deal with the after-effects of a lack of moderation on the part of the consumer (such as health care and pollution costs). This would be a significantly higher level of taxation than Luxuries.

Imports Tax - Any items bought from another country, via any means. This would be to protect our own industries, and to help keep tax revenue and spending within the United States. This would be the highest level of taxation. Once the imports tax has been paid, however, the next purchaser of the good would treat it as a domestically taxable item under the appropriate category.


With an adequate level of consideration given, the appropriate tax percentages could be applied, and because it would be a phased transition from one system of taxation to the other, there would be ample time for businesses and individuals to adjust their finances accordingly. Further, because of the long transition, if there were an under-estimate or over-estimate in the percentages determined, the effects would be minimal from year to year and allow for correction before the transition finalizes. Though I believe a slow transition of 10 years would be simplest to keep track of and calculate the shift with, ultimately this decision would be left to the economic council.

The benefits of a Federal Consumption Tax (FCT) versus the current tax system are immense:

Simplicity: There are currently over 17,000 pages of tax codes. The incredible morass of loopholes, contradictions, and obscure wording leave most citizens feeling alienated, confused, and angry. The FCT rates I propose would fit on a single sheet of paper, yet provide the same amount of tax revenue.

Economic Growth: In a country without business taxes, businesses from all around the world would flock to the United States, bringing with them jobs, production, and services.

Serendipity: Neccessity and accident are the mothers of invention. With so many businesses springing up around the United States, happy accidents resulting in new technologies, new types of business model, and new products and services are certain to result.

Fairness: The FCT would apply equally to everyone, regardless of economic class. Because people would be paying taxes based upon their own consumer choices, there would be a significantly lower level of discontent among the populace.

Poverty Line Accounted For: The "poverty line" in the current tax system has no basis in reality, and has absolutely no method of accounting for the standard of living in an area. It cost far more for someone to meet even the most basic needs of survival in New York City than it does in a small rural town in Montana. A $15k/year salary for the former wouldn't eevn allow for basic food and shelter, while one could live comfortably in the latter. There's simply no realistic way to set a specific "dollar amount" on what constitutes poverty. Instead, if the "Neccessities of Life" were either low-tax or no-tax, then the line of poverty across the United States is equally assuaged from the burden of tax. No one can begrudge a hard working, starving man a loaf of bread. A diamond ring, however, is another matter entirely.

Reduction in the Heavy Foot of Government: The IRS will quite literally persue legal action for years on end, racking up tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions, to persue one hundred dollars worth of taxes owed. This is an absolutely ridiculous waste of resources. Countless resources are expended to deal with millions of tax returns each year, to review and develop thousands of pages of tax codes, and to enforce tax laws and investigate suspected withholdings. Almost all of this can be easily eliminated forever more with the FCT. This money can be put to far better uses or given back to the American people.

"Value Added" Quandry Solved: Previous tax suggestions all run into the problem of "Value Added". That is, when someone buys material A, and uses it to create intermediate product B, which is then purchased by another person to create consumer good C, who pays the tax, and how much? The answer is now quite simple. Each purchaser along the line pays the tax. Any additional costs that are incurred as a result of taxing the same product multiple times along the life cycle are adsorbed by the decrease of costs in middle-men who do nothing more than buy and sell a product without increasing its value.

Increase in Savings and Investments: Since the most intelligent way to use ones money (and avoid taxes) will be to save and invest, both should increase to incredible proportions. Investment will be poured back into companies to develop newer and better goods and services to attract the dollar of the buyer. Social Security and retirement concerns will melt away as more and more Americans find themselves saving, rather than spending, ensuring a more fiscally sound future and affluent venture capital.


There are many other reasons and benefits to a Federal Consumption Tax, but I believe I've made my case. I would be happy to address any questions to the best of my ability.



[edit on 4/3/2007 by thelibra]