ewp (12/02/82)
Jan Edler said that the trouble with our tax system is that it is not
progressive enough. I seem to recall from an Econ class on taxes I took
when I was at school, that if we were to switch to a fixed percentage tax
the rate would only need to be 12 - 15%. This means that the majority of
the net is probably in that bourgeoisie who would get their taxes raised
by making our system more "progressive". Actually, the largest tax burden
is on the "middle class". When you have a large enough income, it is
economical (partly due to your large incremental tax rate) to find ways to
shelter your income. The middle class can't afford to do this. Also, there
are not as many millionaires as you might think. If you would take ALL
the income from these people, you still would probably not be close to
balancing the budget. There just aren't enough rich people to pay for
everything, everyone has to pitch in.
The other point made in that article was that we should get better mass
transportation. That makes sense for densely populated areas but outside
of our major metropolitan areas it would be a waste. Most mass transportation
is already heavily subsidized so it is even questionable what the most
economical means of transportation is for large cities. (Cars are much more
convenient and take us right where we want to go while mass transport should
give better fuel per passenger mile consumption.)
I am not defending the status quo but, these issues require much more thorough
investigation and thought, and there have been people doing just that for a
long time. There is always room for improvement and a need for ideas but,
things are the way they are for a reason.
You said you wanted to stir things up,
Ed Pawlak
ihuxb!ewp