Yeah, that is why I give money to my church
I wanted to dig in a little about taxes, and some thoughts about them. I have advocated, and continue to do so to not reform the code, but to ditch it and start from scratch. Repeal, not reform. I have written my Senators, and my Congressman, but truthfully, one person, writing a blog that few read can not have an effect on the system. That is truthfully where we are now.
I had a discussion with someone the other day (not family) about the charitable deduction. They said, essentially, that the only reason people donate to churches and other charities is for the tax break. Really? That may speak more about the need for quality education than anything else. So, I was looking at my tax return for this year, and ran the numbers. For every dollar that I contributed, I was able to reduce my tax bill by about 15 cents. In what world does that even make sense? oh, the same world that thinks the government gives people money every spring.
Speaking of taxes, I had a thought that would surely appeal to those who want to stick it to the rich. It is a real good idea, and has been floated previously. Limit the mortgage tax deduction to houses appraising less than, say, $500,000. I mean, that would really impact the rich, right? Unless you live in California, or New York, or some other local that probably overwhelmingly voted for Secretary Clinton. Please don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily advocating it, just pointing out how it really isn't about soaking the rich, Tax policy as currently constructed is all about power, and control.
Do you want to see how destroying the tax code looks? Thank you Senator Paul, R-KY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh9_ONcG-qs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qIkORMyEMs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9anBmsvu6Y
Plus you can see the size of the tax code. Here is the bottom line. And so first a question:
Since the implementation of the income tax, what is the average rate of taxes PAID by the "rich"?
a) 10%
b) 20%
c) 30%
d) none of the above
Remember, before you decide, that the tax rate for much of the century was 70% or higher for the top earners. What did you choose?
If you chose b, you are correct. It is because of all of the deductions, tax credits, exemptions, and so on.
Do you want to know what kind of rates in 2013 dollars were used to sell the Income Tax amendment? Here are the 1913 rates: Each rate step starts at the previous high.
1% up to $463,826
2% up to $1,159,566
3% up to $1,739,348
4% up to $2,319,131
5% up to $5,797,828
6% up to $11,595,657
7% above
That is right. For 98% of people today, the rate would have been 1%. Of course it didn't take long for them to realize that those rates were just hooks. In 1917, the top rate for the previous 1% group was 9%, and the top rate for the "rich" was 67%. In 1920, the top rate for the 1% group was now 25% and the highest rate was 73%. I wonder if they would have voted for the amendment if they knew what was just 7 years away.
It needs to go away. Repeal, not reform
I had a discussion with someone the other day (not family) about the charitable deduction. They said, essentially, that the only reason people donate to churches and other charities is for the tax break. Really? That may speak more about the need for quality education than anything else. So, I was looking at my tax return for this year, and ran the numbers. For every dollar that I contributed, I was able to reduce my tax bill by about 15 cents. In what world does that even make sense? oh, the same world that thinks the government gives people money every spring.
Speaking of taxes, I had a thought that would surely appeal to those who want to stick it to the rich. It is a real good idea, and has been floated previously. Limit the mortgage tax deduction to houses appraising less than, say, $500,000. I mean, that would really impact the rich, right? Unless you live in California, or New York, or some other local that probably overwhelmingly voted for Secretary Clinton. Please don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily advocating it, just pointing out how it really isn't about soaking the rich, Tax policy as currently constructed is all about power, and control.
Do you want to see how destroying the tax code looks? Thank you Senator Paul, R-KY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh9_ONcG-qs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qIkORMyEMs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9anBmsvu6Y
Plus you can see the size of the tax code. Here is the bottom line. And so first a question:
Since the implementation of the income tax, what is the average rate of taxes PAID by the "rich"?
a) 10%
b) 20%
c) 30%
d) none of the above
Remember, before you decide, that the tax rate for much of the century was 70% or higher for the top earners. What did you choose?
If you chose b, you are correct. It is because of all of the deductions, tax credits, exemptions, and so on.
Do you want to know what kind of rates in 2013 dollars were used to sell the Income Tax amendment? Here are the 1913 rates: Each rate step starts at the previous high.
1% up to $463,826
2% up to $1,159,566
3% up to $1,739,348
4% up to $2,319,131
5% up to $5,797,828
6% up to $11,595,657
7% above
That is right. For 98% of people today, the rate would have been 1%. Of course it didn't take long for them to realize that those rates were just hooks. In 1917, the top rate for the previous 1% group was 9%, and the top rate for the "rich" was 67%. In 1920, the top rate for the 1% group was now 25% and the highest rate was 73%. I wonder if they would have voted for the amendment if they knew what was just 7 years away.
It needs to go away. Repeal, not reform
Comments
Post a Comment