5. A Fair Tax Code

A Fair Tax CodeA complete reformation and simplification of the United States Tax Code to require ALL individuals and corporations to pay a fair share of a progressive, graduated income tax by eliminating loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and unfair deductions, subsidies and ending all other methods of evading income taxes. 

The current system of taxation unjustly favors the wealthiest Americans and corporations, many of who pay fewer taxes to the United States Treasury than citizens who earn much less and pay a much higher percentage of their incomes in taxes. Any corporation or entity that does business in the United States and generates income from that business in the United States shall be fully taxed on that income regardless of corporate domicile or they will be barred from earning their profits in the United States.

This will allow honest companies and individuals who pay their fair share in income taxes to take over those markets in the United States economy formerly held by income tax cheats.

Businesses and individuals that pay taxes in other countries will no longer be permitted to use that excuse to justify their failure to pay federal income tax in the United States if they obtain benefits from doing business in the United States.

Corporations that create jobs in the United States will be rewarded by the tax code and corporations that remove jobs from the United States will be penalized by the tax code. The substitution of lower capital gains tax rates for graduated income tax rates shall be eliminated. This $4 billion a year “hedge fund loophole” which permits certain individuals engaged in financial transactions to evade graduated income tax rates by treating their income as long-term capital gains which are taxed at a much lower rate (approximately 15%) than income tax.

“Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”  -Benjamin Franklin, 1789.

Click here to sign and show your support of this grievance.

Do you like this page?

Showing 137 reactions

Nathan Duncanson commented 2012-03-28 17:34:35 -0700 · Flag
I still believe that taxing private use of things which belong to the commons instead of taxing private labor is the only “fair tax” that we can ever have.

I consider all land, natural resources, and community or government granted privileges to be part of the commons. Private labor and the products thereof belong to the laborer.

In my opinion, eliminating all taxes on wages, eliminating all sales taxes and value added taxes would greatly help our economy. It would also help the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. Further, taxing private use of the commons at the full market rate for leasing those elements of the commons would encourage efficient, productive use of those resources and privileges.
Jeffrey McCollim commented 2012-03-23 08:34:29 -0700 · Flag
With all the home equity value losses and not knowing if these losses will ever return in our ever downward spiraling housing market, I propose that property taxes be declared a tax credit instead of the current tax deduction. This new tax credit should be instituted for a minimum period of at least 10 years and repealed when our home equity values return to their values of 2006. This will create more sales in the housing market and will not effect your local communities in any tax revenue losses.
chuck gregory commented 2012-03-20 17:24:38 -0700 · Flag
David Nova, I have it on the highest authority that Dorothy Tot0 is the pen name of Phyllis Schlafly….

The Oz series was critiqued as a populist fable, with the gold vs. silver currency backing as one of its themes.
Timothy Price commented 2012-03-20 15:34:09 -0700 · Flag
There are leaders who say the with unlimited printing of toilet paper, and with decreasing resources and decreasing supplies, that there will be no inflation, but we consider the source. Leaderless people who communicate well will avoid the trap of those who deceive.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell commented 2012-03-20 15:20:24 -0700 · Flag
David, the reason taxing gross income vs profits makes no sense is quite simple. Some businesses are low profit; some are high profit.

For example, food chains’ profits are about 2% of gross while some business profits are 50% of gross or more. So, if food chains were taxed only 5% of gross, they all would lose money.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell commented 2012-03-20 15:16:55 -0700 · Flag
David, unfortunately groups do not do well without leaders.
Dorthy Toto commented 2012-03-20 14:32:43 -0700 · Flag
You do realize, I hope, that almost everyone in America is part of the 1%. Compared to the rest of the world, even our very poor are doing pretty well. Of course, I shouldn’t need to point out that almost ALL the poor people in the world live under socialist or communist regimes.

So, the real question that should be asked is, since we have proof that the Euro-socialist model is the quickest path to poverty, are folks like you wishing to impose it on Americans because you hate Americans in general, and the poor in particular, or do you have another, more selfish reason for wishing to destroy the one financial system that has successfully lifted millions of people out of true (no food, no homes, dirty water, no education, etc) poverty.

So, which is it. Are you so selfish you are willing to impoverish others for your own benefit, or do you just hate people and want them to suffer?
David Nova commented 2012-03-20 11:18:41 -0700 · Flag
rodger malcolm mitchell, thanx for clarifying regressive taxes, etc. far as i know, occupy has no leaders. (watch your parking meters.) you might consider making that seminar available to everyone. there sure are enough of us that need to know more economics. (btw, it’s ‘weimar’.)
David Nova commented 2012-03-20 11:04:24 -0700 · Flag
dorothy toto, i’m not sure if you’d be happier in oz or kansas, but even if you’re not in the 1%, you do represent them.
David Nova commented 2012-03-20 10:53:14 -0700 · Flag
chuck gregory, you’re right that the term “double taxation” was misused by bush to justify ending taxes on dividends. i do not so misuse it and will keep using it properly.

i don’t know where cynthia bage made her comments. until i read them i’ll believe taxing a business’s gross income rather than its profit makes no sense, since without profit the business will have nothing to pay with.

a high standard deduction has nothing to do with health savings accounts or any other dodge. 80% of american families make less than $100k. i’m proposing that only the top 20% pay income tax and, by eliminating the payroll tax, the top 20% would pay for all the entitlement trust funds too. they can afford it, since they make half of all personal income.
Dorthy Toto commented 2012-03-19 15:23:31 -0700 · Flag
If you mean engaging in honest debate is a waste of space, you may be correct, at least where you are concerned. Have you noticed how intolerant Progressives are, and how unwilling, or unable, they are to defend their points of view in a rational, thoughtful, manner?

But, to return to the point, you maintain that “everybody” is entitled to SS because they, or their parents, pay into it. I assume by “parents pay into it” you are referring to kids who are on some aspect of SS, not to adults who haven’t paid into it, but who’s parents, or maybe even grandparents, do so.

That is fine with me. If all know what “the rules” are, then no one should be upset. You pay your money, and you take what is promised.

But what about the situation where politicians have promised much more than they can deliver from SS? Is it fair to impose additional taxes on some because politicians lied to the public, promising them far more than their SS contributions could support?

And where is the fairness for those who worked their whole life, saved part of whatever they earned, and now find, because they have a bit of extra income, are being deprived of their SS benefits in order to “support” a small group of people who spent every penny their earned, even though the two earned the same amount. Is it fair to penalize those who sacrificed their whole lives to be comfortable, to subsidize those who lived above their means their entire life, and now demand others keep them in the style they demand.

And just to clarify, I don’t have a problem with the rich paying too much. I have a problem with anyone paying too much. And I have a problem with anyone paying too little. Neither the millionaire living off tax-exempt bonds, nor the poor person living off government largess should be free from taxes.
chuck gregory commented 2012-03-19 13:37:55 -0700 · Flag
Dorothy, everybody is entitled to Social Security because they or their parents pay into it, and they pay into it with the expectation that it will take care of them. And you have a problem with that.

You have a problem with the poor not paying enough taxes and the rich paying too much.

You have a problem with understanding basic economics. If you are not part of the 1%, you obviously are a Fox News viewing fanatic. (Fox News viewers know less about news than any other group, including people who don’t watch ANY TV new!) You are a captive of the 1%.

Please go comment at the American Thinker or the National Review Online. You are wasting space here.
Dorthy Toto commented 2012-03-19 13:29:28 -0700 · Flag
Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t make enough to be part of the 1%.

I do, however, have a strong attraction to the truth, and hate the idea of people being hoodwinked into something that, if they knew the truth, they’d reject.

I know it is the Progressive belief that people aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions, and that they have to be “guided” by their intellectual masters. But I disagree.

For thousands of years, societies ruled by the “intellectual elites” have lead the masses into wars, poverty, ignorance, and slavery, just to maintain their “God given” right to rule. Whether by the Divine Right of Kings, Shaman Priests Threatening the Crops, Richelieu Proclaiming liberté, égalité, fraternité or Politburo Member invoking the Power of the State, it always ends up the same. Elites claim one thing to get themselves into power, and then turn that power against the People. All the while, enriching themselves off the misery of others.

If you want to turn SS into an entitlement, than have the intellectual honesty to say so, engage in rigorous debate, and let the folks decide for themselves. What you tried to do is typical of the lying sacks of shit that mislead folks into dependency and economic slavery while empowering themselves off the misery and despair that their actions have created for others.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell commented 2012-03-19 13:04:08 -0700 · Flag
Note to all: #Occupy is unfocused. It has 21 goals, and zero understanding of economics. It is destined for failure.

The way to grow an organization requires having a single goal, and a deep understanding of the basic concept. I can try to arrange an educational seminar for #Occupy leaders, so they:

1. Can learn the basis for all economics: Monetary Sovereignty
2. Can learn what that single goal should be.

My question is: Are there any #Occupy leaders, and if so, are they interested?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell commented 2012-03-19 12:59:00 -0700 · Flag
I now understand that Dorothy represents the 1%.

First she wants to “expand the tax base.” Translation: More poor people pay taxes

Then she wants to drop overall rates. Translation: Rich people pay less.

Her latest: She resists eliminating the single most regressing tax in America (FICA), because paying FICA provides “expectations” of receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits. Translation: Paying the government entitles you to nothing, but it will make you believe it does.

She could not possibly have expressed the 1% ideology better. People of the 99%, this is what you should understand has been happening to you. A traitor is in your midst.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell commented 2012-03-19 12:49:00 -0700 · Flag
Dorothy says:

" . . . expand the tax base, raise the government’s revenue, and probably drop the overall tax rates . . . "

Those are code words for: Tax more poor people (That’s how you expand the tax base) and tax rich people less ( That’s what happens when you drop overall tax rates).

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Dorthy Toto commented 2012-03-19 12:37:07 -0700 · Flag
Since you seem so interested in the idea of taxing gross income, why don’t we apply the concept a bit further. Rather than taxing folks just on their income, which you noted 50% are making less than $26,000 per year, why don’t we tax folks on their total income, including benefits, subsides, and all forms of transfer payments. After all, what is the real difference between someone who has $65,000 of wages, and someone who has $65,000 of government subsides.

The choice is not an accident since recent studies have shown that someone living off government largess has more free cash, and a lot more free time, than someone working, earning, and paying taxes on, $65,000 of regular income.

Time to stop being so narrow-minded, and looking at income as just wages. We could really expand the tax base, raise the government’s revenue, and probably drop the overall tax rates, if we’d simply tax folks on what they take in without regard to from whom it comes.
Dorthy Toto commented 2012-03-19 12:30:21 -0700 · Flag
If you eliminate FICA, are you also proposing to eliminate Social Security? Or is the elimination of the FICA tax just a surreptitious way of turning Social Security from an “insurance program” into an entitlement that can be used more effectively as a political tool

Under the insurance program, those who have worked their entire lives, and contributed to SS, have a right to expect that it will be there for them when they retire. By implication, those who haven’t contributed to SS may be deemed as having “no rights” to those funds.

If SS is morphed into an entitlement, then all bets are off. Those who have contributed have no reasonable expectation of return on their “contributions” while those who are used to collecting dependency building entitlements would have a much stronger case for increasing their “take”.

Of course, from a political viewpoint, the ability to demonize anyone thinking they have any rights to their earnings, while funneling those monies to politically tractable groups, has a lot of benefits, including an expansion of the Statist bureaucracy and further disempowerment of the citizenry.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell commented 2012-03-19 10:21:11 -0700 · Flag

See: Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA at http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/ten-reasons-to-eliminate-fica/

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
chuck gregory commented 2012-03-19 09:45:50 -0700 · Flag
Rodger, why eliminate FICA?
The 99% Declaration
There IS a Solution! Join now to help draft this historic document!

Website Chat