Are W-2 physicians being suckered?

[drusso]

“If You’re Getting a W-2, You’re a Sucker”

There are many differences between the rich and the rest of us, but one of the most consequential for your taxes is whether most of your income comes from wages.

www.propublica.org

"Under the current system, said John Sabelhaus, a former Federal Reserve economist and one of the study’s authors, “if you’re getting a W-2, you’re a sucker.” This basic divide is also apparent in how tax laws are enforced. To the IRS, the average worker is an open book, since all their income is disclosed on those W-2s and 1099s. Should they enter an errant number on their tax return, a computer at the agency can easily catch it."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mid|ine]

Yeah, I don't understand why I have to enter all of those W2 and 1099s. Copies are sent to the IRS. My tax software should login to the IRS, download all of them and populate the software. For most people, they should just be able to go to the IRS website, answer a few questions and be done. Im always worried there is some 1099 out there that the USPS didn't deliver to me but the IRS has a copy...

 

[buddababa]

Yeah, I don't understand why I have to enter all of those W2 and 1099s. Copies are sent to the IRS. My tax software should login to the IRS, download all of them and populate the software. For most people, they should just be able to go to the IRS website, answer a few questions and be done. Im always worried there is some 1099 out there that the USPS didn't deliver to me but the IRS has a copy...

because lobbying. because billion dollar industry. because politicians.

Sad.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

I had someone file for tax refunds under my name in multiple states. These were states that I had never traveled to, much less worked in. The IRS blindly sent them hundreds of thousands of dollars. They should have easily known that it was a scam. Had I been this incompetent, I would have been writing a check to someone for malpractice. They are grossly incompetent and someone else (us) get to pay for their mistake. This gave me serious reservations about the IRS.

I am sure that I was not the only one that dealt with this scam.

 

[Ferrismonk]

Yeah, I don't understand why I have to enter all of those W2 and 1099s. Copies are sent to the IRS. My tax software should login to the IRS, download all of them and populate the software. For most people, they should just be able to go to the IRS website, answer a few questions and be done. Im always worried there is some 1099 out there that the USPS didn't deliver to me but the IRS has a copy...

Practically, I agree with you. If you really want to know the answer why it is the way it is though, it's because our tax system theoretically is not "the government takes" but rather "we give our required taxes to the government".

Arguably, the government takes your money each paycheck (and doesn't pay you any interest on that money btw). Then, each year, you decide how much money you are required to give the government, and pay that money to them. If your interest-free loan you gave the government doesn't cover what you owe, they you pay more. If you gave them too much money upfront, then you get some of your own money back.

Under our current system, the government cannot just take what it thinks is correct, you are giving money to them. Obviously, if there's a mismatch what they think they're owed and what you think you should pay, and audit should (theoretically) clear that up.

 

[SeniorWrangler]

Intuit, the company that makes TurboTax, spends a lot of money lobbying against reforms that would make filing taxes easier for regular people, so they can keep selling us their software.

 

[Baron Samedi]

I had someone file for tax refunds under my name in multiple states. These were states that I had never traveled to, much less worked in. The IRS blindly sent them hundreds of thousands of dollars. They should have easily known that it was a scam. Had I been this incompetent, I would have been writing a check to someone for malpractice. They are grossly incompetent and someone else (us) get to pay for their mistake. This gave me serious reservations about the IRS.

I am sure that I was not the only one that dealt with this scam.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax refunds? How much are you withholding? 😬

 

[SSdoc33]

I had someone file for tax refunds under my name in multiple states. These were states that I had never traveled to, much less worked in. The IRS blindly sent them hundreds of thousands of dollars. They should have easily known that it was a scam. Had I been this incompetent, I would have been writing a check to someone for malpractice. They are grossly incompetent and someone else (us) get to pay for their mistake. This gave me serious reservations about the IRS.

I am sure that I was not the only one that dealt with this scam.

the IRS is woefully underfunded. its not "gross incompetence". i have a family member who works for the IRS fraud division. they have to chase these things down individually. the issue is that it take them a long time (years) to follow up on all these claims.

now, we could fix this by giving the IRS more money/resources and in the long run SAVE the taxpayers money. but that would be expansion of the federal gvt, which we know we absolutely can't do.

in 10 years, we be basically a cash-free society, which should make everything easier to track and report. but the fraud will continue or likely get even worse

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Thankfully I'm not a w2 employee but what was wrong with the flat tax plan? Seems so simple. Everyone pays something to contribute to the society they are a part of and benefit from and loopholes for the rich would hopefully disappear.

The US tax system is so confusing. I don't think any other country has such as complicated tax process. I bet even the majority of accountants know only the basics and don't fully understand the tax code.

 

[Ducttape]

The flat tax plan disproportionately affects those who are middle and lower class, because most are based primarily on income. It is a common plan endorsed by the ultrarich because the marginal value of the tax declines with higher income. (we do not really fit in this category of rich).

also, most of the ultra rich rely on non-income sources of wealth gain. So they would never pay a proportionate amount under most flat tax plans.

 

[cowboydoc]

the IRS is woefully underfunded. its not "gross incompetence". i have a family member who works for the IRS fraud division. they have to chase these things down individually. the issue is that it take them a long time (years) to follow up on all these claims.

now, we could fix this by giving the IRS more money/resources and in the long run SAVE the taxpayers money. but that would be expansion of the federal gvt, which we know we absolutely can't do.

in 10 years, we be basically a cash-free society, which should make everything easier to track and report. but the fraud will continue or likely get even worse

Or we could simplify the tax code, minimize dead weight loss, hamstring lobbying and corruption…maybe even address drusso’s peeve of nominally non-profit hospitals. Then the Agency would have less work to do.

 

[buddababa]

The flat tax plan disproportionately affects those who are middle and lower class, because most are based primarily on income. It is a common plan endorsed by the ultrarich because the marginal value of the tax declines with higher income. (we do not really fit in this category of rich).

also, most of the ultra rich rely on non-income sources of wealth gain. So they would never pay a proportionate amount under most flat tax plans.

The flat tax should be based on net worth/total assets. Perhaps something under 10%, maybe ranging from 2-5%. Everyone should be able to afford this. Exemptions for the poor, disabled etc (that's another conversation for another day!)

 

[cowboydoc]

The flat tax plan disproportionately affects those who are middle and lower class, because most are based primarily on income. It is a common plan endorsed by the ultrarich because the marginal value of the tax declines with higher income. (we do not really fit in this category of rich).

also, most of the ultra rich rely on non-income sources of wealth gain. So they would never pay a proportionate amount under most flat tax plans.

How would this be worse than the current tax structure?

 

[DOctorJay]

the ultra wealthy should not be able to borrow against their assets to avoid income tax.

I don't think we should be taxing net worth because in many cases it's just a number (stock value) until sold at which time capital gains are taken and taxes are applied.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

The flat tax plan disproportionately affects those who are middle and lower class, because most are based primarily on income. It is a common plan endorsed by the ultrarich because the marginal value of the tax declines with higher income. (we do not really fit in this category of rich).

also, most of the ultra rich rely on non-income sources of wealth gain. So they would never pay a proportionate amount under most flat tax plans.

I'll admit I don't know enough about this but did you read the part of the article that reads "And so this group, including the likes of Bezos, Elon Musk and Warren Buffett, paid federal income taxes of about 3.4% on the $400 billion"

This would be under the current system. Would more regulation really fix this?

I say we either change the system or find out who the accountant is for these guys. I'd love to hire him.

 

[buddababa]

the ultra wealthy should not be able to borrow against their assets to avoid income tax.

I don't think we should be taxing net worth because in many cases it's just a number (stock value) until sold at which time capital gains are taken and taxes are applied.

Agree

 

[DoctwoB]

I'll admit I don't know enough about this but did you read the part of the article that reads "And so this group, including the likes of Bezos, Elon Musk and Warren Buffett, paid federal income taxes of about 3.4% on the $400 billion"

This would be under the current system. Would more regulation really fix this?

I say we either change the system or find out who the accountant is for these guys. I'd love to hire him.

It would be hard to fix. The current problem is that people who earn income pay high taxes, while people who have assets do not.

The basic strategy is the wealthy barrow money tax free against their assets (which have not been taxed since the gains haven't been realized) and then die, pay off the loan with the estate, and get a step up in basis of assets meaning they are never taxed, except for estate taxes, which are often avoided through the use of trusts and other loopholes.

There are two possible ways to fix this. One is to tax wealth. This is difficult to do as it requires valuing illiquid items regularly and the legality of congress's power to institute a wealth tax is debatable based on the constitution/amendments, i.e. it could require an amendment to institute given the current supreme court is highly unlikely to lean left on this.

The second which is the more reasonable option is to eliminate the step up in basis at death for estates over a certain value. The problem with eliminating the step up in basis is that heirs can be left with a huge tax bill to be paid from the estate, but if the estate has less cash and more appreciated assets that may mean that they have to sell the house/farm/baseball team they inherited to pay the tax bill. You could limit this by only having it effect estates above a certain value. This would raise funds as well as reduce the incentive to just delay taxes until death.

 

[SSdoc33]

htis conversation gives me an ice cream headache.

agree with limiting the wealthy's ability to borrow off their assets. however, that means that things like a home-equity loan would also have to be axed. i suppose there is bar that could be set to help the middle class.

easier way right now would be to increase the highest rates of the capital gains tax for the uber-rich

 

[Pain Applicant1]

It would be hard to fix. The current problem is that people who earn income pay high taxes, while people who have assets do not.

The basic strategy is the wealthy barrow money tax free against their assets (which have not been taxed since the gains haven't been realized) and then die, pay off the loan with the estate, and get a step up in basis of assets meaning they are never taxed, except for estate taxes, which are often avoided through the use of trusts and other loopholes.

There are two possible ways to fix this. One is to tax wealth. This is difficult to do as it requires valuing illiquid items regularly and the legality of congress's power to institute a wealth tax is debatable based on the constitution/amendments, i.e. it could require an amendment to institute given the current supreme court is highly unlikely to lean left on this.

The second which is the more reasonable option is to eliminate the step up in basis at death for estates over a certain value. The problem with eliminating the step up in basis is that heirs can be left with a huge tax bill to be paid from the estate, but if the estate has less cash and more appreciated assets that may mean that they have to sell the house/farm/baseball team they inherited to pay the tax bill. You could limit this by only having it effect estates above a certain value. This would raise funds as well as reduce the incentive to just delay taxes until death.

Interesting. I assume by assets you're mostly referring to stock. Is that right?

Anyone else care to chime in? I'm taking notes to try to do this for myself.

 

[Baron Samedi]

Interesting. I assume by assets you're mostly referring to stock. Is that right?

Anyone else care to chime in? I'm taking notes to try to do this for myself.

Most of us already do to a lesser extent. When you apply for a loan, there's already collateral. For most us, it's our house/car that's being financed. For personal loans, it might be your current assets in a brokerage account. You don't have to realize gains on your house worth or stocks in order to use it as collateral for a loan.

For billionaires, they get absurdly low interest rates because the banks know the likelihood of default is extremely low and its guaranteed ROI for the bank when the balance is paid out of the estate come death.

The billionaires never realize the gains on their assets(typically, equity in a company that has gone up in value exponentially) and never get taxed on their increased net worth. Very little, if any, of their wealth is produced by income so they avoid the higher rates that the rest of us pay(this is why a flat tax on income is popular among the super rich since it still won't apply to them). They still get to live as billionaires without ever paying Uncle Sam.

 

[Doctodd]

how much do you think income taxes really contribute to the overall taxes paid to the federal govt? Not sure why anyone is arguing for more tax dollars to be given to the federal govt to just waste or spend frivolously on gender equality or subsidizing solar panel companies that fail, or some other wasteful reason. Remember what the federal govt's responsibility is.

If you dont like getting a W2, assume the risk and work of starting a business. Like Elon Musk says, if you dont have the desire...if you need a motivational speech......then maybe a 9-5 job is what is best for you.

This is a very divisive hit piece article.

 

[DOctorJay]

yeah mostly stock and real estate

just google "buy, borrow, die"

 

[mid|ine]

yeah mostly stock and real estate

just google "buy, borrow, die"

But don't the banks expect the loans to be paid back? At some point, they have to sell stock to pay the loans off.

Borrowing against wealth isn't a problem, IMHO. A tax on unrealized gains over a certain amount is not totally unreasonable. Nor is a wealth tax IMHO. But both of these would start at >$50 or 100m, but instead of increasing with inflation, would probably creep down.

 

[hyperalgesia]

I would eliminate all deductions for "charitable" causes.

Otherwise, I think our system is pretty good and fair.

The problem is our spending.

 

[Baron Samedi]

how much do you think income taxes really contribute to the overall taxes paid to the federal govt? I read somewhere it is only around 10%. Not sure why anyone is arguing for more tax dollars to be given to the federal govt to just waste or spend frivolously on gender equality or subsidizing solar panel companies that fail, or some other wasteful reason. Remember what the federal govt's responsibility is.

If you dont like getting a W2, assume the risk and work of starting a business. Like Elon Musk says, if you dont have the desire...if you need a motivational speech......then maybe a 9-5 job is what is best for you.

This is a very divisive hit piece article.

You could at least have done some basic research before posting.

 

[Doctodd]

Around the 50’s and 60’s when the income tax was 90%, amount of income that the federal government was paid was less than what it was after JFK decreased the tax rate to 70%. And then when the tax rate was decreased again, federal income tax increased again. So taxing the rich is not the answer.

 

[Baron Samedi]

Around the 50’s and 60’s when the income tax was 90%, amount of income that the federal government was paid was less than what it was after JFK decreased the tax rate to 70%. And then when the tax rate was decreased again, federal income tax increased again. So taxing the rich is not the answer.

I won't claim to know enough about 50s-60s tax code to comment but what's the alternative? Trickle down economics?

 

[DOctorJay]

But don't the banks expect the loans to be paid back? At some point, they have to sell stock to pay the loans off.

Borrowing against wealth isn't a problem, IMHO. A tax on unrealized gains over a certain amount is not totally unreasonable. Nor is a wealth tax IMHO. But both of these would start at >$50 or 100m, but instead of increasing with inflation, would probably creep down.

yeah it's paid back from the estate's assets from what I understand

 

[hyperalgesia]

I won't claim to know enough about 50s-60s tax code to comment but what's the alternative? Trickle down economics?

"Trickle down economics" is the term social engineers use to lament the unfairness of life itself.

 

[DoctwoB]

Around the 50’s and 60’s when the income tax was 90%, amount of income that the federal government was paid was less than what it was after JFK decreased the tax rate to 70%. And then when the tax rate was decreased again, federal income tax increased again. So taxing the rich is not the answer.

This concept is referred to as the Laffer curve. Basically that at some point, if tax rates go up revenues actually go down because of reduced work and tax avoidance. Laffer curve - Wikipedia

And that point does exist. But it is at far higher rates then we currently experience. Bumping up taxes by 5 or even 10 % would not get us there, as shown by the fact that the trump and bush tax cuts dramatically reduced revenues, not increased them. Which is fine if that's the goal of the policy, but don't buy into the BS that tax cuts will raise more revenue.

The point your missing though is that the rich don't pay nearly as much in taxes because their money doesn't come from income. Doctors and other high income W2 folks pay by far the highest tax rates. What most of us argue for is not that the top W2 tax bracket should be higher, but rather that other forms of wealth accumulation (unrealized gains, buy/borrow/die, carrie dinterest, step up in basis, etc) outside of income should be taxed more (or W2 taxed less) to level the playing field.

 

[Ferrismonk]

I frankly don't see a problem with a high-net worth individual paying little income tax if their income is low. The vast majority of Americans who are super wealthy are that way because they've built companies that do things we like (and pay for). If they have not realized the assets, there is no income. This asset could be gone tomorrow based on the whims of so many things outside their control.

The fair thing would be to tax capital gains as normal income. We should also get control of our budget and limit our wasteful spending. The federal government pulled in more money this year than they EVER have, yet continue to multi-TRILLION dollar yearly deficits. This isn't a not-enough-money problem, it's a we-spend-way-too-much problem.

 

[Baron Samedi]

I frankly don't see a problem with a high-net worth individual paying little income tax if their income is low. The vast majority of Americans who are super wealthy are that way because they've built companies that do things we like (and pay for). If they have not realized the assets, there is no income. This asset could be gone tomorrow based on the whims of so many things outside their control.

The fair thing would be to tax capital gains as normal income. We should also get control of our budget and limit our wasteful spending. The federal government pulled in more money this year than they EVER have, yet continue to multi-TRILLION dollar yearly deficits. This isn't a not-enough-money problem, it's a we-spend-way-too-much problem.

If you want to cripple the middle class's opportunity to participate in the market, tax capital gains like normal income. That will essentially limit most people to tax-protected accounts such as 401k/IRA as normal brokerage accounts will basically be for wealth preservation and not be able to outpace inflation without being subjected to the same amount of risk of the market.

Your comment of not realizing assets equaling no income only makes sense if they are unable to borrow against those unrealized assets.

 

[clubdeac]

If you want to cripple the middle class's opportunity to participate in the market, tax capital gains like normal income. That will essentially limit most people to tax-protected accounts such as 401k/IRA as normal brokerage accounts will basically be for wealth preservation and not be able to outpace inflation without being subjected to the same amount of risk of the market.

Your comment of not realizing assets equaling no income only makes sense if they are unable to borrow against those unrealized assets.

short term capital gains and nonqualified dividends ARE taxed as normal income.

I recently read that 57% of Americans didn't pay taxes last year. Why did I pay 40% of my income last year in taxes while 57% of the population paid no taxes? Tell me how that's right and fair when 57% didn't pay their fair share

my best friend from high school lives in Cali. He and his friends know how to bilk the system and have been receiving unemployment for the last 15 years. He hasn't paid taxes since ~ 2008. Kinda irks me

 

[Baron Samedi]

short term capital gains and nonqualified dividends ARE taxed as normal income.

I recently read that 57% of Americans didn't pay taxes last year. Why did I pay 40% of my income last year in taxes while 57% of the population paid no taxes? Tell me how that's right and fair when 57% didn't pay their fair share

my best friend from high school lives in Cali. He and his friends know how to bilk the system and have been receiving unemployment for the last 15 years. He hasn't paid taxes since ~ 2008. Kinda irks me

Short term capital gains and dividends make up a very small portion of most folks' portfolios. If you are paying a lot of those taxes you might be better off doing those sorts of investments in tax advantaged accounts.

Not really sure what the rest of your post is in response to. Maybe another comment in this thread?

 

[drusso]

The flat tax plan disproportionately affects those who are middle and lower class, because most are based primarily on income. It is a common plan endorsed by the ultrarich because the marginal value of the tax declines with higher income. (we do not really fit in this category of rich).

also, most of the ultra rich rely on non-income sources of wealth gain. So they would never pay a proportionate amount under most flat tax plans.

"You will own nothing and be happy."

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

short term capital gains and nonqualified dividends ARE taxed as normal income.

I recently read that 57% of Americans didn't pay taxes last year. Why did I pay 40% of my income last year in taxes while 57% of the population paid no taxes? Tell me how that's right and fair when 57% didn't pay their fair share

my best friend from high school lives in Cali. He and his friends know how to bilk the system and have been receiving unemployment for the last 15 years. He hasn't paid taxes since ~ 2008. Kinda irks me

How on Earth did 40% of your income go to taxes?

 

[swamprat]

How on Earth did 40% of your income go to taxes?

Top tax bracket + state income tax if your in a place like PA
Could be more if you live in California, NJ, NY
But yeah its prob less given only the money above whatever amount is taxed at 37%. Nonetheless I feel his pain

 

[DOctorJay]

his effective tax rate is almost certainly less than 40% (i.e. you don't pay your tax bracket)

 

[Baron Samedi]

Maybe he put every penny he earned into crypto or penny stocks, bought and sold it a bunch of times to rack up some short term capital gains, and never actualized massive losses?

Or maybe he overcontributed to all his and his spouse's retirement plans and took penalties, withdrew a bunch of money from them to take more penalties, and then invested it all in a house to flip to owe some taxes there, and has refused to sell it at a loss?

 

[Doctodd]

You could at least have done some basic research before posting.

i took out the 9 or so words in my post that you decided to comment on, yet ignored the rest.

 

[Doctodd]

This concept is referred to as the Laffer curve. Basically that at some point, if tax rates go up revenues actually go down because of reduced work and tax avoidance. Laffer curve - Wikipedia

And that point does exist. But it is at far higher rates then we currently experience. Bumping up taxes by 5 or even 10 % would not get us there, as shown by the fact that the trump and bush tax cuts dramatically reduced revenues, not increased them. Which is fine if that's the goal of the policy, but don't buy into the BS that tax cuts will raise more revenue.

The point your missing though is that the rich don't pay nearly as much in taxes because their money doesn't come from income. Doctors and other high income W2 folks pay by far the highest tax rates. What most of us argue for is not that the top W2 tax bracket should be higher, but rather that other forms of wealth accumulation (unrealized gains, buy/borrow/die, carrie dinterest, step up in basis, etc) outside of income should be taxed more (or W2 taxed less) to level the playing field.

im not going to argue about reasons to increase taxes when a large percentage of that money is wasted or spent inefficiently or given to political cronies.....i will be all for increased taxation when i have a politician in the family.

 

[Baron Samedi]

i took out the 9 or so words in my post that you decided to comment on, yet ignored the rest.

I already responded. You said that the federal government uses its money on gender studies. I posted a breakdown of where our tax dollars go. Not sure what else you wanted me to say.

 

[SeniorWrangler]

short term capital gains and nonqualified dividends ARE taxed as normal income.

I recently read that 57% of Americans didn't pay taxes last year. Why did I pay 40% of my income last year in taxes while 57% of the population paid no taxes? Tell me how that's right and fair when 57% didn't pay their fair share

Romney said something like this during his presidential campaign but at least he talked about income tax since everybody pays other taxes like Social Security.
Also, that 57% includes babies, people on Death Row, etc.

 

[SSdoc33]

How on Earth did 40% of your income go to taxes?

it didnt

he doesnt know what rate is. he was trying to make a (poorly informed) point.

 

[SSdoc33]

Or we could simplify the tax code, minimize dead weight loss, hamstring lobbying and corruption…maybe even address drusso’s peeve of nominally non-profit hospitals. Then the Agency would have less work to do.

[Quietly] Not bloody likely.

The Simpsons (1989) - S08E12 Comedy clip with quote [Quietly] Not bloody likely. Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.

getyarn.io

 

[Baron Samedi]

it didnt

he doesnt know what rate is. he was trying to make a (poorly informed) point.

It reminds me of those folks who say, "my salary went up but I actually LOST money because my tax bracket went up!"

It's just hyperbole meant to provoke a reaction or a poor understanding of one's own finances.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

Hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax refunds? How much are you withholding? 😬

Lol. The scammers claimed that much was withheld. The IRS didn't even bother to check before mailing a check to some PO box in multiple states that I had never actually worked.

the IRS is woefully underfunded. its not "gross incompetence". i have a family member who works for the IRS fraud division. they have to chase these things down individually. the issue is that it take them a long time (years) to follow up on all these claims.

now, we could fix this by giving the IRS more money/resources and in the long run SAVE the taxpayers money. but that would be expansion of the federal gvt, which we know we absolutely can't do.

in 10 years, we be basically a cash-free society, which should make everything easier to track and report. but the fraud will continue or likely get even worse

It is gross incompetence to send multiple checks to multiple states exceeding taxes withheld for a single person. Not only had I never worked in those states but they also never had an address for me at the locations they sent those checks. Your family member would have less fraud to chase down if they would implement some common sense measures to prevent this.

Can you imagine sending a check to pay a bill for a doctor you had never seen in a state you had never visited? That is essentially what happened.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

I like the idea of a flat tax (10% or whatever). I like the idea of reducing that to a lower amount for people making less (2% for people under $50,000). I want everyone to pay taxes. I want everyone to get upset about government wasteful spending. It is hard to be upset about that if you don't pay taxes. Tax law is already too complex for me. Adding more laws appears to be ineffective and it makes the IRS's job even more cumbersome. You always hear how rich person X paid only 3% tax or how the rich don't pay their share. This should help eliminate many of those loopholes.

 

[Baron Samedi]

I like the idea of a flat tax (10% or whatever). I like the idea of reducing that to a lower amount for people making less (2% for people under $50,000). I want everyone to pay taxes. I want everyone to get upset about government wasteful spending. It is hard to be upset about that if you don't pay taxes. Tax law is already too complex for me. Adding more laws appears to be ineffective and it makes the IRS's job even more cumbersome. You always hear how rich person X paid only 3% tax or how the rich don't pay their share. This should help eliminate many of those loopholes.

A flat tax has other criticisms but most pertinent is that it still wouldn't affect rich people, since it only implies to income. Rich people love to support flat tax because it creates the illusion that they are paying their share, when in reality they still will pay next to nothing.

 

[BobLoblaw78]

I would eliminate all deductions for "charitable" causes.

Otherwise, I think our system is pretty good and fair.

The problem is our spending.

I'm not sure about this. I would think people would still give to charitable causes, but less so. And I think this type of giving is usually more efficient than government charitable spending. I also worry about the government having even more control over who gets government/charitable funds. It seems like there is so many things the government funds already. And that shouldn't be the role of the government.

I agree on the spending. No one wants to cut back when it comes to their pet projects though. And not enough people care about the spending bc they don't contribute their own money (taxes).

Good luck being a politician who says they are cutting spending to your personal projects. And one says they want more people to be upset over government spending (since half don't pay taxes).