Bobby, conflating ad valorem (property) tax with income tax, which did not exist when Jefferson wrote that, is a very interesting position.

Indeed, though clearly Jefferson agreed with the principle of progressive taxation when applied to the taxes that were collected in his era, and to find a comment from him, or any of the Founding Fathers, dealing directly with income taxes, might be a little difficult.

To put it another way, given the quote, what do you believe Jefferson would think of income taxes that result in persons earning $1billion p.a. paying a lower rate than those earning less than $200,000 in the same period?

I'm not a Jeffersonian scholar nor do I pretend to be one. But, if I must, he couldn't comprehend how the Federal Government could have inflated the dollar so that any person could earn $1billion.

Why don't you ask a more germane question? Such as would he disagree with any of the categories of deductions.

Germane it is. Given that Jefferson saw a case for a group of individuals be excluded from the taxes of his era, why is it that some quarters that claim to hold the views of the Founding Fathers in esteem believe that some (or all) taxes in the present era should be applied to universally?

Yes it is. Jefferson was no fool and before passing judgement would have asked why and understood the issue.

So, is anyone ready to talk about categories of deductions?

Just an little example from a presidential candidate. He gave about 30% of his income to charity. If that was denied to him his tax rate would be higher. Now is preventing charitable deductions what you seek?

Idiot talking point questions do not lead to understanding and without understanding there can not be consensus.

---

I'm for anything that simplifies the tax code.

Box 1, Enter the amount of money you received from all sources.
Box 2, Subtract $50,000, if less than zero enter zero.
This is the amount you owe!

---

But how are we going to cover the rest of the deficit?

Minimum work week of 80 hours, compulsory for all adults.

---

But how are we going to cover the rest of the deficit?

Minimum work week of 80 hours, compulsory for all adults.

And who is going to pay for all these hours?

I'm for anything that simplifies the tax code.

Box 1, Enter the amount of money you received from all sources.
Box 2, Subtract $50,000, if less than zero enter zero.
This is the amount you owe!

And that would be true for corporations also? After all such organizations are people, right?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Well, not anything -- though I suspect even you Gary, would like some simplification of the code.

It seems that some believe that a progressive tax rate is confiscation. Then again, I suppose one could make a counter argument that at the upper reaches of income, the income itself included confiscation.

I'm for anything that simplifies the tax code.

Box 1, Enter the amount of money you received from all sources.
Box 2, Subtract $50,000, if less than zero enter zero.
This is the amount you owe!

And that would be true for corporations also? After all such organizations are people, right?

I hope Citizens United is overturned.

For taxes, zero or one hundred percent makes no difference, because no matter what SCOTUS says they are pieces of paper.

---

I'm for anything that simplifies the tax code.

Box 1, Enter the amount of money you received from all sources.
Box 2, Subtract $50,000, if less than zero enter zero.
This is the amount you owe!

And that would be true for corporations also? After all such organizations are people, right?

I hope Citizens United is overturned.

For taxes, zero or one hundred percent makes no difference, because no matter what SCOTUS says they are pieces of paper.

Fair enough, though you wanted to discuss deductions, does this include those provided to industry? As for simplifying the tax code, I suspect there may be a little opposition to capping an individuals earnings at $50K.

I imagine that some will want any rewrite of the tax code to result in smaller government, if that is the case, perhaps it's worth being reminded just how small the US government already is compared to the governments of other nations.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I'm for anything that simplifies the tax code.

Box 1, Enter the amount of money you received from all sources.
Box 2, Subtract $50,000, if less than zero enter zero.
This is the amount you owe!

And that would be true for corporations also? After all such organizations are people, right?

I hope Citizens United is overturned.

For taxes, zero or one hundred percent makes no difference, because no matter what SCOTUS says they are pieces of paper.

Fair enough, though you wanted to discuss deductions, does this include those provided to industry? As for simplifying the tax code, I suspect there may be a little opposition to capping an individuals earnings at $50K.

Only half understanding. Tax humans, not paper. If you don't tax paper then there are no deductions for industry. But every penny coming out of industry to a human gets taxed, when the human gets it.

As to the cap, you did understand that entire post was satire.

I imagine that some will want any rewrite of the tax code to result in smaller government, if that is the case, perhaps it's worth being reminded just how small the US government already is compared to the governments of other nations.

Unfortunately, Firefox didn't render that page for me. However it seems like the Greeks and Spanish are doing a spiffy job of paying their government's to operate.

---

Only half understanding. Tax humans, not paper. If you don't tax paper then there are no deductions for industry. But every penny coming out of industry to a human gets taxed, when the human gets it.

As to the cap, you did understand that entire post was satire.

I imagine that some will want any rewrite of the tax code to result in smaller government, if that is the case, perhaps it's worth being reminded just how small the US government already is compared to the governments of other nations.

Unfortunately, Firefox didn't render that page for me. However it seems like the Greeks and Spanish are doing a spiffy job of paying their government's to operate.

I'd hoped it was satire.

Not taxing paper could lead to some interesting (and possibly undesirable) outcomes - paper transfer funds to other paper overseas, overseas paper transfers funds to person out of sight of US gov't ...

I noticed Firefox had issues with the site though Konqueror and Chrome didn't. The following is included on the page and might help:

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

So what are you implying bobby?

What does tax revenue as a % of GDP have to do with the size of government?

Since there is absolutely no longer any connection what so ever between tax revenue and size of government anymore, you are implying some sort of red-herring.

At best it's misleading. And Barry in Arizona has stated different numbers for the U.S. than what's in this chart.

Can you be a bit more specific in the message you're trying to convey?

With such a well researched counter argument, there is nothing left but for me to apologize for even thinking there was anything interesting in the graphic of OECD 2009 figures

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Not taxing paper could lead to some interesting (and possibly undesirable) outcomes - paper transfer funds to other paper overseas, overseas paper transfers funds to person out of sight of US gov't ...

That is permitted under the current system anyway. As long as that first transfer is "a cost of doing business" it is 100% deductible.

---

Bobby, more so than most other countries, the US has a lot of state/local taxes on top of the Federal taxes.

That being said, for the past few years, the Federal tax hit has been at very low levels (around 16%) compared to the numbers before the recession (typically around 20%).

Federal revenues *ought* to track much more closely to expenditures. More often than not, up through 2001 they did -- revenues up around 20% and expenditures pretty close to that.

Of course what first started to push a gap up -- during the Bush years, was the combination of major tax cuts matched to major expansion of government spending (especially defense, but also prescription medications coverage). If the wars and major defense/security expansion had been funded by taxes (along the lines of shared sacrifice), then, absent the recession, the mismatch *prior* to Obama would not have been as large as it was.

Once you add the recession in addition to the major expansion of defense spending (up something like 80% between 2001 and 2009), the prescription drug support, and demographic factors (ie Social Security and Medicare), you end up with a MAJOR imbalance.

To close that we need to rein in spending (and not just defense spending) AND push revenues back toward historical numbers.

To do that -- we need political will. This country doesn't appear to have that. Democrats are loath to cut spending (aside from defense), Teapublicans are loath to increase revenues. I'm hoping that the 'financial cliff' we are facing as of January 1 just might get a post election congress to get its crap together and try to do some governance -- something there has been precious little of.

My fear is that the 'bipartisan' response will be simply to kick the fiscal can down the road with some form of continuing (and overriding) resolution to delay action (and retain the Bushcuts) for six months or more. Personally, I'd rather see that not happen and hit the fiscal wall -- at least that has compulsory budget cuts and the elimination of the Bush cuts (all of them).

Then again, the markets seem to be really confused on this stuff -- there is a lot of fear regarding that 'cliff' -- but at the same time, a strong desire for fiscal realism. No one is inclined to square the circle.

The OECD figures are TOTAL tax revenue for the countries listed. Therefore include all local taxes.

Most countries of any size have local taxes and Property taxes. In the UK the local taxes are called council tax. In Germany there are Lander taxes.

And most coutries have some form of sales tax. In Europe it is called Value Added Tax (VAT).

And lets not forget a lot of countries tax fuels heavily. I'm sure you, in the US, would love to pay the same as us in the UK, the equivalent of $8.55 per gallon every time you fill your cars fuel tank

Winter -- fair point regarding energy taxes. If that chart included all taxes, then I suspect it may be for 2009 or 2010 -- taxes have been quite a bit lower in part as a function of the Bush cuts and in part as a function of the recession.

Also, I wonder if Social Security payments are included as taxes (they might be).

I realize that European countries have the VAT -- my point here is that in the US -- that is at the state, not the country level. In fact, not only is there a state sales tax in nearly every state of the union, but various communities (counties or cities) add a bit of a sales tax of their own. In Phoenix, that is a 2% tax on top of the state 7.3%.

Nearly all states in the US also add an income tax on top of the Federal income tax. In New York City they get a triple whammy -- in addition to the Federal income tax there is a state and a CITY income tax.

That being said, I realize that the US has by and large a significantly smaller tax burden than the civilized world. We also have very effective political whinging regarding the 'burdensome' taxes we pay.

Winter -- fair point regarding energy taxes. If that chart included all taxes, then I suspect it may be for 2009 or 2010 -- taxes have been quite a bit lower in part as a function of the Bush cuts and in part as a function of the recession.

The figures are from 2008(ish).

In the UK social security payments (national insurance) are regarded as a tax, and supposedly ring-fenced to the benefits covered.