Income tax's dedutions per taxpayers and dependents

[Supposn]

The income tax considerations per person were originally enacted to provide some tax relief for lower income earners; we can’t get blood from stones.

Unfortunately the consideration is a per capita amount of deduction from taxable income rather than a credit applied to the income tax itself.

Due to income tax’s progressive rates, the current per capita considerations grant exceedingly greater the amounts of benefits to wealthier taxpayers. Middle income earners derive much lesser benefits and the lowest income taxpayers derive little or no benefits from the per-capita tax consideration.

I’m a populist that advocates the deduction should be a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income. The amount of per-capita tax credit should be revenue neutral to our current regulations and that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

This revenue neutral tax modification grants greater tax relief to lower income tax payers without increasing our tax rates.

Respectfully, Supposn

[DragonStryk72]

That's just the same mess of a tax system. Better to go over to the Fair Tax, and then we don't need to bother with deductions and such.

[darin]

What are the 'greater amounts of benefits' granted to wealthier taxpayers?


The income tax considerations per person were originally enacted to provide some tax relief for lower income earners; we can’t get blood from stones.

Unfortunately the consideration is a per capita amount of deduction from taxable income rather than a credit applied to the income tax itself.

Due to income tax’s progressive rates, the current per capita considerations grant exceedingly greater the amounts of benefits to wealthier taxpayers. Middle income earners derive much lesser benefits and the lowest income taxpayers derive little or no benefits from the per-capita tax consideration.

I’m a populist that advocates the deduction should be a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income. The amount of per-capita tax credit should be revenue neutral to our current regulations and that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

This revenue neutral tax modification grants greater tax relief to lower income tax payers without increasing our tax rates.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

The income tax considerations per person were originally enacted to provide some tax relief for lower income earners; we can’t get blood from stones.

Unfortunately the consideration is a per capita amount of deduction from taxable income rather than a credit applied to the income tax itself.

Due to income tax’s progressive rates, the current per capita considerations grant exceedingly greater the amounts of benefits to wealthier taxpayers. Middle income earners derive much lesser benefits and the lowest income taxpayers derive little or no benefits from the per-capita tax consideration.

I’m a populist that advocates the deduction should be a tax credit rather than a deduction from taxable income. The amount of per-capita tax credit should be revenue neutral to our current regulations and that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

This revenue neutral tax modification grants greater tax relief to lower income tax payers without increasing our tax rates.

Respectfully, Supposn

So you want to create ANOTHER entitlement in the tax code that for citizens that already do NOT pay income taxes in the first place?

Thanks for another barely thought out economic analysis.

[OldMercsRule]

More corntrol from Central Corntrol. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Supposn]

So you want to create ANOTHER entitlement in the tax code that for citizens that already do NOT pay income taxes in the first place?

Thanks for another barely thought out economic analysis.

FJ1200, currently the per capita of exemption s is $3,650 per capita. Those deductions from taxable incomes are worth $12,775for each exemption to a taxpayer in the 35% TAX BRACKET. It’s only worth $401 per capita to taxpayers in the 11% bracket. It's worth even less or nothing for many of our working poor who pay income taxes.

I advocate eliminating the $3,650 per exemption deduction from adjusted gross income and replacing it with a revenue neutral amount, (greater than $410 and less than $12,775) per exemption is to be deducted from the income tax. After the initial year that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

This would be a tax reduction for taxpayers earning less and an increase for those earning more than the median adjusted gross incomes of all income tax payers. Proportionally to adjusted gross incomes, the differences of taxes due to this modification of tax regulations would be significant for lower income earners and almost inconsequential to those earning more than the median gross adjusted income.

The proposal’s a tax cut only for lower income tax “payers”. There are as many PAYERS earning less as those earning more than the median annual adjusted gross income. It can only cause reduction rather than increasing the cost or the numbers of persons receiving public assistance.

Respectfully, Supposn

[fj1200]

FJ1200, currently the per capita of exemption s is $3,650 per capita. Those deductions from taxable incomes are worth $12,775for each exemption to a taxpayer in the 35% TAX BRACKET. It’s only worth $401 per capita to taxpayers in the 11% bracket. It's worth even less or nothing for many of our working poor who pay income taxes.

I advocate eliminating the $3,650 per exemption deduction from adjusted gross income and replacing it with a revenue neutral amount, (greater than $410 and less than $12,775) per exemption is to be deducted from the income tax. After the initial year that amount should be annually cost of living adjusted.

This would be a tax reduction for taxpayers earning less and an increase for those earning more than the median adjusted gross incomes of all income tax payers. Proportionally to adjusted gross incomes, the differences of taxes due to this modification of tax regulations would be significant for lower income earners and almost inconsequential to those earning more than the median gross adjusted income.

The proposal’s a tax cut only for lower income tax “payers”. There are as many PAYERS earning less as those earning more than the median annual adjusted gross income. It can only cause reduction rather than increasing the cost or the numbers of persons receiving public assistance.

Respectfully, Supposn

Supposn, your math sucks move the decimal place, it's worth 1277.50 at 35%. Just another lib idea that results in more distribution towards the lower incomes who don't pay income taxes in the first place.

[Supposn]

Supposn, your math sucks move the decimal place, it's worth 1277.50 at 35%. Just another lib idea that results in more distribution towards the lower incomes who don't pay income taxes in the first place.

FJ1200, of course it’s a typographic error that I failed to catch. You’re correct, @35% each exemption’s worth $1,277.50 and @11% they’re worth $401.50 each.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Respectfully, Supposn