Is a simpler and fairer tax code achievable?

Just using those words are designed to create a rift between the ones who are perceived to have-not and the ones who are perceived to have. The ironic thing is that the ones who are in the haves category think they are in the have-nots category.

/BAH

Reply to
jmfbahciv
Loading thread data ...

yes, you missed something. without the interest deduction, the return on investment goes down, meaning the rent will be increased to achieve the same return on investment.

Reply to
Reggie

You forget that most landlords don't charge rent to obtain a specific investment. They charge what the market will bear, based on supply and demand. What renters are willing and able to pay will not be affected by what the landlord can deduct and what he can't.

Reply to
Stuart Bronstein

Something definitely doesn't add up since the Mass. estate tax exclusion was $700K as of 2002, and has been $1 million since 2006 so the tax on a $500K estate is zero.

The maximum Mass. tax rate is 16% on estates over $10M, and is about

4% on taxable estates of $500K (actually estates of $1.5M due to the $1M exclusion.) Also, the Federal exclusion has been $1M or more for many decades, not $500K.

$100K taxes on $500K estate is 20%. There is no possible way that could be the estate tax owed on an estate that small.

Any chance you dropped a digit or two?

Reply to
John Levine

Shoot. Sorry. The year of death was 1995. Mass must have changed its laws since then. I ended up paying more tax to the state than to the Feds because the Fed took a percentage of the amount above $500K. The state took a percentage of the entire valuation of the estate. IIRC, the state's tax rate was 5%.

The Fed and Mass. exclusion was $500K when I was executrix.

/BAH

Reply to
jmfbahciv

Preposterous. Of course they charge what the market will bear, and that affects the value of the property. Lower returns, including due to an inability to deduct interest payments, means lower value. Lower value mean no more investment, properties removed from this typeof use, etc., leading to a scarcity, leading to increased rents to bring the returns back in line.

You cannot just take money from some activity and expect there to be no reaction.

Reply to
Reggie

jmfbahciv wrote: : BignTall wrote: : > On 5/18/2016 11:07 PM, Alan Meyer wrote: : >> : > >. : > >. : >> Do you think the tax system in the U.S. is fair or unfair? : > : > Without definitions of 'fair' and 'unfair' this isn't an : > answerable question. Since there is no universal (or even : > widespread) agreement on what is 'fair' in regards to the : > tax system, the details all get fought out in the : > political system where self interest and political power : > are far more important than any abstract sense of : > fairness. : > : > Discussions on tax fairness tend to be as productive as : > discussions about religion. : > : Just using those words are designed to create a rift between : the ones who are perceived to have-not and the ones who are : perceived to have. The ironic thing is that the : ones who are in the haves category think they are : in the have-nots category.

: /BAH

If you start from the assumption that a certain amount of money is needed by the government to pay fo services, it only can provide. Defese, police, flood control, interstate roads, etc, then the issue is how to get this money from the prole . Is it fair to sy, an equal amount from each person no matter how richor poor? do you say, an equa % from each personof the amount s/he earns? do you say ma higher p% of amount earned from those who earn more? what dosonstitutes "fair?" as well as Hw d you raise enough for the gorvernment to do its jobs? Clearly, if you take the same given sum from wach erson, many peole will have no money left after paying taxes. The government will then have toeither provide money to feed and house those with no remaining mney or for the burial of the bodies of those folks when they die from exposure adn hunger. If you collect only a small amount from each erson equally then there wil be no money to provide an army, police force, disaster payments, etc. It just goes on like this.

Wendy

Reply to
W. Baker

On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:26:07 EDT, "W. Baker" wrote in

How about a flat tax of say 15% on Total Income above say $30K? Do you think that would work?

========================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: This topic has drifted too far away from tax laws and policy and too close to pure politics. Unless you have something to say about tax law compliance, please don't both.

Reply to
VinnyB

Not at all. In the current tax code, 99% of it is defining what total income is, and 1% is computing the tax. Multiple tax brackets add an infiinitesimal amount of complexity.

The tax code is full of "tax expenditures" that are intended to support some desirable goal or other. That make calcuating taxable incomer harder, and also makes compliance harder, since they have to figure out whether taxpayers are allowed to use the tax expenditures they do.

What would make the tax code a lot simpler is to get rid of tax expenditures like the mortgage deduction, and support the desirable goals with actual expenditures such as housing subsidies. Every tax expenditure has a constituency and lobbyists so this will not be easy.

For example, in the UK you cannot deduct charitable contributions. But charities ask their donors whether they are UK taxpayers, and at the end of the year, the charity can reclaim the tax paid, using an approximate average rate on the UK donations. This is a lot simpler to enforce than a charitable deduction, since there are millions of taxpayers but only thousands of charities.

R's, John

Reply to
John Levine

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.