I was reading an article on consumption versus income tax systems.  (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/tax.html)  The author suggests, at the very end, that it is possible to cut the entire income tax system and it will only take away $1 Trillion dollars from the budget.  If the income tax is removed, what other sources of income does the US Government have to fund its operation?
205431
oh, only one trillion!  that's great!\n\nthere are also capital gains taxes, corporation taxes, tariffs on internationally-traded goods, federal sales taxes (sales tax usually limited to states), and a variety of user fees, license fees, administrative fees, and so forth.\n\nI saw one person say we could print more money... that's one of those "gosh, how come no one's thought of that?" type deals.  A good course in macroeconomics would tell you why that can't happen, but basically it's supply and demand.  If you flooded the money market with dollars, the value of the dollar would plummet just like the Mark did in post-WWI Germany when they tried that trick.  Money is just a representation of a country's ability to produce goods and services, and each dollar is a fraction of our economic capacity.  More paper just means each piece of paper is a smaller fraction of the whole thing, so it's like trying to make more pie by slicing the same pie into more pieces.  Doesn't work- it just makes a mess of the pie you've got.\n\nI mean, if you really wanted to get down and dirty, the fed has few limitations on what it can collect taxes on.  But the thing is, where would that trillion be cut from?  Everyone has a few programs they don't care for... some think the military should be smaller, some think regulatory agencies like ADA or HUD could be done away with... but the consequences of slashing a program often outweigh the benefits of tax relief.  Like if you slashed HUD funding, you'd have rampant homelessness, which means higher crime rates, which means more expense in law enforcement and the economic impact of property value depreciation wherever the homeless congregate.  And slashing defense could really lead to some terrible things, because military power balance is just as vital as economic power balance in this world.\n\nPeople at the local level love talking about eliminating property tax, which is their big money-maker, but the bottom line is that the money's gotta come from somewhere, and budget cuts tend not to be the answer.  I worked for a town manager in a town where the people elected a council that slashed taxes, and everyone was screaming to have their programs back.  None of those legislators that cut the taxes were re-elected, because you don't realize how important governemnt programs are until they're gone and you're left with all these solutionless problems.  Believe me, as an insider, that all public programs are in some form or another a response to a real and present problem that people decided was worth investing public money into to solve.  Eliminate the program, and the problem comes back full-force.  And the Reagan concept that if you shrink government, the problems will solve themselves as the would-be tax dollars are redistributed in the free market.  It doesn't work that way because the free market is extremely short-sighted and self-centered.  Government has its flaws, but its stated purpose is to keep society running smoothly, and there has yet to be a workable alternative.
527100
The sales tax is the most fair tax of all.  If you are rich, you buy more and therefore pay more taxes.  If you are poor, you don't pay as many taxes because you can't buy.  This of course relies on the current tax laws which exempt staples (food, water, etc) from sales taxes.\n\nI would support a national sales tax and have the income tax and all deductions stopped.
409761
Unfortunately, one of the most corrupt government spending programs is entitlements/welfare.  I really dont know how to fix it now since it is far out of control.  It would be hard to reform the system and "fine-tune" it when it is so far out of control, but we should give it a go.  I say out of control because some people who as far as I can see receive these entitlements now are not worthy of such benefits.  I think people who are deserving of these benefits are only the eldely and handicapped (mentally or physically).  Any person who can physically work should be working, ceteris paribus!  I understand that is an issue for debate with some.\n\nFurthermore, I think taxes should be levied entirely on a user basis.  I am speaking not only of school taxes, but I am going to take it a bit further by saying there should be no income taxes, instead tax items for sale.  Basically, what you buy is taxed by the government in place of the income tax.  Why should people have to pay taxes on items they do not benefit from, ie. school taxes for single homes.  I understand there are some issues with this, but it is just a thought.
44394
No.  Actually, war funding and the running of the government within the limits of the constitution are the only things that the federal government is supposed to use tax money for.  In addition, the constitution prohibits the federal government from direct taxation of the people.  They are supposed to get thier money from the states.  \n\nAll the rest of the money should go back to the people.  it's nice to help the poor and disabled and elderly, but no one should be compelled to do so.  It is not the government's place to collect taxes for these things. Individual members of congress can give all they want, but they need to keep thier hands out of the money pot for public service.  It's not thier money to give.
347946
The tough thing here is we have a lot of definitions of "middle class", much less wealthy. \n\nPoor or low income=Under $20,000\nMiddle is somewhere between $20,000 and $75,000 but \nUpper Income is generally defined as over $200,000\nWealthy are those that make over $1,000,000 a year\n\nFormerly in the financial wealth management(financial planning) biz, I can tell you everyone uses different standards. But, in general, wealth is determined by a mix of net worth and annual income. (Someone making $100,000 yet has $1,000,000 in assets or someone who makes $800,000 yet has only $200,000 in assets would both be potential clients-as yes, they both exist.\n\nI've also noted that the more money one makes, the more tax deductions and credits they can take advantage of-there are few deductions for most middle class excepting mortgage interest or child credits yet at $200,000 and up, believe me, there are many!\nI've seen a $500,000 income reduced to $38,000 "taxable". If you have a nice income, pay for a good tax attorney!  \n\nAs to the Democrats, the estate tax only benefits the "rich"-those with over $2,000,000 in assets and will increase to 3.5 million so I believe that will be back on the table. I believe they will concentrate first on the obvious-the upper rates of $200,000 and above. We somehow have to pay for this debt we've accumulated from the lowering of taxes(revenue) and the cost of the war. It really matters not whether Republican or Democrat-when a business(or the government) loses a source of income and costs go up, you must find a way to pay! The US Govt has a lot better credit than most but sooner or later....so I'd personally be willing to give my tax break back-it wasn't much at my $40,000 a year income-and I hate to pass on the debt to my son.\n\nAnd a piece of advice-the 401k is one of the best savings vehicles ever-contribute all you can up to the limit but especially whatever your employer matches.A great deal for any income bracket!
302241
Why?  To support goverment functions, and "social" programs.  This can include anything from the military to protect our country, to subsidies for child care, to research of why a flea jumps so far.\n\nWhen is it done?  Constantly, always, incessantly.. In payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, fuel taxes, and on and on and on and on.....\n\nWhat is the rate of taxes at this moment?  If you can figure that out, you're doing great.  You'd have to find out all the underlying costs associated with all of those taxes, for you individually, combine them, divide them by your total income, and there you have it.
239093
The amount of money coming into the government coffers is variable and so is the amount it has to spend.  If the economy is good, there are lots of taxes being paid and more money available.  If we are at war, we are spending a lot of money to maintain our army.  If the government was required to have a balanced budget, it would also have to keep a huge savings account in case of unexpected expenses.  Since the government can borrow at very low interest rates, it makes more sense to borrow when needed and pay it back when there is a surplus.  Of course, not many governments are good at the pay it back part.
622182
1996 to 1999, the US Goverment led by President Bill Clinton generate the first Surplus's in 30 years.  President Clinton even began paying down the National Debt.  2001 - 2006, President Bush and the Republican lead Congress double the National Debt from 4 TRILLION to OVER 8 TRILLION DOLLARS with no decrease in sight.  Their solution?  Cut more taxes for the Ultra rich, get rid of estate taxes for the ultra rich.  They cloak their agenda by calling Estate Taxes - death taxes; however, only about 5% of Americans will ever have to pay any Estate Tax.  Thomas Jefferson was a strong proponent of having wealth being disappated at the time of one's death so that we do not have wealth staying in the same family from generation to generation by indicating that the dispersal of wealth is a strong contributor to a strong democracy.  Therefore, whenever, you hear the Republican mantra of 'it's your money'; think more about how the meager tax cuts on most of us benefit those with the most and sacrificing benefits for the rest of us.  Vote for the Party of WE (Democrats) and not the self centered selfishness of the Party of ME (REpublicans).
146711
The great part of this country is that you can disagree with the government.  I agree that the government needs to do a better job of protecting individual rights.\n\nHowever this does not relieve you of the obligation to pay your income tax.  The only reason your earnings have value is because of the US Government and you must do your part to support the country, even if you disagree with the administration.
413109
More than any self-respecting, hard-working (non-elected politician), North American taxpayer would allow, or be pleased to know. . .\nDo YOU have an actual 'figure'???\nIf so - please include in your details of this question?\nThanx -\n\nPS - I truly DO appreciate you 'doing more research' and including the anstronomical figures in your details . . . that's some awesome numbers that you have reported . . . and we the people are powerless to stem the flow!!! as we continue to allow those dollars to be 'taxed' away from our grocery money!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ---- can we all say?\n"I'm so proud to be an American"
365157
No such thing as too much money in a free market capitalist system. Hmmm what would you suggest happen? Income redistribution, give some to the poor folks? Nope, they can go to work and make there own!\n\nDonna H down below me, for your information rich Americans are the most benevolent givers of any nation. We give to charities every year more money then the gross national product of most nations on this planet. So don't say they don't give anything back because that my dear.......is a lie!
298896
This tax cut is a catch 22. You have to set in a $300,000.00 plus income bracket for this tax cut to do any aid. The tax cut is to save the failing stock market with all of the forced inflation, the higher numbers wont support themselves. The higher stock figures are just inflated to the max, and aren't real. The tax is a capital gains and dividends tax cut, that if your under $300,000.00 and you take the tax break, the tax break it throws you into a backdoor tax called the AMT tax. People wont know this until next year when they file their taxes. This whole thing is another Bush lie, and he is misleading to keep votes again. So as always the tax cut is for the rich, you know like Walmart, and Exxon Mobil of Texas. The whole thing is ridiculous, and that is what Americas forced inflation is all about. We are paying the riches taxes again.
347519
what about the poor who pay nothing below a certain level??a question that runs two ways.the middle class carries the weight of all the loopholes and breaks. I believe that a flat tax or a VAT would be equitable to all. But you will get the whiners who benefit from the present system?CPA's attorneys tax preparers need the business?if they keep it complicated they can shill the masses?I 've always wondered why the Bible says to tithe a tenth to charity and church related things and the US Govt, takes a graduated rate ? why cant they exist on 10 per cent?
55284
The deficit is money owed by the government to several different places.  Examples are, U.S. citizens, U.S. companies, Japan, China, other goverment agencies that didn't use precious budgets...  Interest is paid on this balance every year.  As the national debt grows so too does the interest paid.  Because the government also makes the money, they could in theory simply print more money and give it to their creditors.  If they did that, the U.S dollar would become weaker compared to other countries money.  Cutting a pie into more slices without making the pie any bigger will mean each slice of pie is smaller.  Same principle applies to monetary policy.\n\nAs the government makes more money, inflation kicks in.  A dollar in 1940 could buy a lot more than it does today.  People that invest in things like banks and the stock market expect to beat inflation and even get more.  For instance inflation runs about 3 percent per year on average.  So on any investment you need to get more than 3 percent return or you will loose purchasing power.  \n\nTo pull it all together.  Government gets to a point that interst owed on national debt is higher than GDP.  This means that we can not make more in a year than we owe. (Not likely to happen but proves a point)  The only way the government can pay its debt is by doubling the amount of money in circulation.  This would cause every dollar to loose 50 % purchasing power.  The only way you could convince me to save my money rather than spend it would be by offering more than 50 % rate of return.  If a bank is offering lets say 55 % interest rates then they too have to make more return on their investment.  The people they loan the money to (home owners through morgages) would have to pay more than 55 % on there home loan.  People would stop borrowing money at such a high rate, demand for houses would fall.  The supply of houses would stay about the same.  Decrease demand holding supply the same would lower the price of homes.  Thus create a market crash
56177
It is possible to negotiate with the government to get your tax debt reduced.  I suspect this will only happen if it is realistic to expect that the debt won't be paid at all otherwise.  A personal accountant could probably help for under $1K.
311675
There are none. Tax is a neccessary burden on the economy for government apparatus to function, and does not affect economy, at least positively.
386659
That doesn't really change the net income that is taxable, as your withholdings are not your actual TAX. It is the state taxes that make a difference.\n\nSome other ideas - open a traditional IRA (a Roth won't do it).  There's no income limit on a traditional IRA and if you are married you can fund one for your spouse, even if they are not earning income (ie a stay at home mom).  For 2006 and 2007, you can fund up to $4000 a piece (in separate accounts, one for each of you) if you are 49 or younger, and up to $5000 each if you are 50 or older.\n\nThat directly reduces your taxable income.   Hopefully you're maxing your contribution to your employer's 401K, which is another great way to reduce your taxable income, while still retaining that money for your own use.  If you have a FSA or MSA, (Flexible Spending Account or Medical Spending Account) at work, you might also review your withholdings for next year to prevent this problem next year.\n\nYou can also donate appreciated stock or bonds to charity and deduct the full market value (even though you paid less for the stock), while avoiding the capital gains on that stock.\n\nI would play with tax prep software.  It is also possible that the AMT isn't going to make a big difference in your taxes due.   Knowing what that potential cost is, will help you make a better decision as to what you should do about it.