eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (02/16/85)
< declare the pennies on your eye > I am a new subscriber to net.taxes, and I have read many articles discussing the political issues surrounding taxation. I don't know if these belong in net.taxes, rather than net.politics, but here goes. I would like to take a poll (mail only please), concerning appropriate taxation programs. Please choose one of the following admittedly imperfect policies: A. Progressive tax, with many deductions. B. Progressive tax, with very few deductions. C. Flat tax, with many deductions. D. Flat tax, with almost no deductions. I am talking about personal income tax here, not corporate taxes, since I know almost nothing about them. I realize many tax lawyers/accountants/supporters read this newsgroup, so I expect an atypical bias towards A (it keeps said individuals happy). I am interested in your selection only, not the reason (by mail). Flame on the net if you wish. Since some have (or will) express their preference on the net, I shall do so as well. I like choice D, since it is the simplest. Employers and financial institutions can withhold 20% automatically, and almost nobody needs to fill out these damn forms. We wouldn't have to employ all these damn IRS agents, and tax lawyers, and H&R block people, saving considerable resources. Cheating (and other tax shelters) become virtually non-existent, saving the average taxpayer a lot of money. I have heard several arguments against simple flat tax, and I shall mention only a couple. 1. It is unfair to the poor. Wrong!!! Life is unfair to the poor. This problem should not be solved VIA taxation. If the existing programs are inadequate, the programs should be changed. If a new flat tax adds an unfair burden (20%) on the poor, we should increase their welfare (whatever) by 20%. Everyone is much better off, since the rich (paying very little tax) have a much larger 20% than the poor. It seems irrational to use taxes to achieve economic redistribution. 2. We need tax laws to subsidize certain industries. So why must we subsidize various industries. If someone (say a small farmer, or an auto industry) cannot operate at a prophet, why should I support them? Why not let a few companies go out of business, reduce the supply, raise the price, and allow the remaining companies to earn a substantial unsubsidized prophet? Of course the companies remaining will be most able to do this (VIA competition). If a few things become more expensive, it is only because that is what it really costs to produce them. Please don't repeat argument 1. If the poor suddenly can't afford food, it is better and cheaper to subsidize the poor, than the entire farming industry. Besides, the taxes saved (without various subsidies) would probably allow the poor to buy the slightly more expensive food. I am about to take advantage (quite unfairly) of the interest deduction for my house. I don't need it, and most home owners (middle class) are much better off than the many renters, whose taxes must be higher because of my deduction. The housing industry would get along almost as well (after a 4 year slump) without this deduction. And why should I encourage people to have children in this incredibly overpopulated world? If i'd wanted to pay for a child, I would have had one myself. I realize it is in my interest to educate and feed the children of the poor, but why must I support everybodies child? If there exists an essential industry, which cannot operate at a prophet, there must be better ways to subsidize it (rather than tax deductions). So far, I know of no such industry in the United States. I better stop now. Flame if you wish, but send me your selection [ABCD]. I want to know how intelligent, educated, informed taxpayers feel. Will summarize of course. -- Having, is not so pleasing a thing after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true. Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
kfl@hoxna.UUCP (Kenton Lee) (02/17/85)
xxx I vote for a progressive tax with no deductions. My reasoning: 1. Deductions have created a large anti-productive tax-shelter industry. I think the effort wasted on tax-shelters far outweighs any intended benefit. The productivity, and thus the economy, of the US will be improved by eliminating deductions. Since there is probably no fair way of partially eliminating deductions, they should all go. 2. Most government services (especially in the 1980's) are keyed towards people with lots of capital. Taxation should be proportional to benefit. Since taxing possession is probably illegal, the fairest way to tax is on income, progressively. -- Kenton Lee Bell Labs - WB ihnp4!wbscc!kfl or ihnp4!hoxna!kfl
susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (02/20/85)
> A. Progressive tax, with many deductions.
It keeps people employed. ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (02/21/85)
> I would like to take a poll (mail only please), concerning > appropriate taxation programs. > The proposal that I like the most combines elements of both a flat tax and a progressive tax. I don't know which category I would put it in. Probably flat tax with some deductions. It is as follows: Everyone pays a fixed 'flat' rate on their income. (Say 10%) They also receive one standard deduction. That deduction is set to the median (NOT mean!) of incomes reported in the prior year. In this way The 50% of folks who are loosing at this game don't pay to finance it. The 50% who are winning pay a 'flat' rate on their winnings, but a progressive rate on their total income. The winners pay to play the game. And know on to some political questions: > ... It seems irrational to use taxes > to achieve economic redistribution. The gov't takes in taxes and spends taxes. Unless people are willing to redistribute voluntarily, I don't see much choice. (What is a law demanding redistribution other than a tax...) > 2. We need tax laws to subsidize certain industries. > So why must we subsidize various industries. Say, for instance, that an (unfriendly?) gov't decided to enter the motorcycle business and subsidized production. Do we pack up and leave (and pay the costs of closing down a good industry - unemployment cost money too...) or counter by partial subsidy? Do we allow catastrophic colapse of a declining industry, or gracefull decay by diminishing subsidy? There are valid resons to subsidize. > If someone (say a small farmer, or an auto industry) cannot operate > at a prophet, why should I support them? Perhaps because the cost of subsidy is less than the cost of failure. > If there exists an essential industry, which cannot operate at a prophet, > there must be better ways to subsidize it (rather than tax deductions). > So far, I know of no such industry in the United States. This is probably true. That is it's problem. There is nothing that the political machine detests so much as a blatant truth of subsidy, direct and in the open, when the alternative of hidden subsidy is available.