fare@.ucalgary.ca (Michael David Farebrother) (08/16/89)
I just wonder if someone could shoot some holes in my theory. Apart from the fact that no-one would elect people planning to do this, what is wrong with throwing out the income tax act, and replacing it with a "30(?)% income tax" , no exclusions, no deductions, just report your income and pay 30% of it. Maybe the number is not enough, but what about the basic idea? Mycroft Farebrother
sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (08/16/89)
In article <1713@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> fare@enelg.UUCP (Michael David Farebrother) writes: > > I just wonder if someone could shoot some holes in my theory. >Apart from the fact that no-one would elect people planning to do this, >what is wrong with throwing out the income tax act, and replacing it with >a "30(?)% income tax" , no exclusions, no deductions, just report your >income and pay 30% of it. > Maybe the number is not enough, but what about the basic idea? > > Mycroft Farebrother The idea is called flat rate tax. It is the true Zen of the tax reform attempts carried out in the US and Canada. Unfortunately, these attempts were severely watered down: instead of one tax bracket, there are three; instead of no deductions and a low rate, there are many deductions (fewer than before, but still many) and a higher rate. In short, they wimped out. To actually put it into effect, there would still have to be some fudging. For instance, when you say 'income', you usually mean after paying all of your costs. What are allowable costs? Employee salaries definately, but what about sales trips? Taking a client to lunch? Taking a client to a three-martini lunch? Installing a pool in your back yard so you can entertain clients at home? Where to draw the line. A second issue is the poor, who in general need every cent they can get. This is relatively simple; just apply a flat-rate tax of (say) 20% to all income above (say) $20,000. Thus, a person with only $20,000 pays no tax, a person with $30,000 would pay $2000, and a person with $60,000 would pay $8000. Sounds pretty good to me. It's detractors complain that it is 'regressive', which means that it does not explicitly attack the rich in an attempt to get them to pay a greater share. I dispute this, because the rich don't pay a large enough share now, due to the many loop holes that only work for the rich. If it was implemented as I (roughly) describe above, it would proably bring in a bit more money, cost almost nothing to collect, and probably get a much larger share from the rich. Sounds good to me. In summary, someone who proposed this was elected, his name was Michael Wilson, but the special interest whiners got to him, and so he was not allowed to actually do it. Crispin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Office: DC3548 x3934 Home phone: 570-2517 Post Awful: 60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1 UUCP: watmath!watmsg!sccowan Domain: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu "Everything to excess. Moderation is for monks." -Lazarus Long
ndonald@ccu.UManitoba.CA (Nick Donaldson) (08/17/89)
A flat-rate rax wouldn't be such a bad idea. At least then, you know
exactly what you have to pay (in relation to how much you make).
--
Nick Donaldson
Internet: Ndonald@Ccu.UManitoba.CA or Ccm.UManitoba.CA
BITNET: Ndonald@UOfMCC
If I know then, what I knew now, it wouldn't make any difference.pt@geovision.uucp (Paul Tomblin) (08/23/89)
In article <1713@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> fare@enelg.UUCP (Michael David Farebrother) writes: > > I just wonder if someone could shoot some holes in my theory. >Apart from the fact that no-one would elect people planning to do this, >what is wrong with throwing out the income tax act, and replacing it with >a "30(?)% income tax" , no exclusions, no deductions, just report your >income and pay 30% of it. > Maybe the number is not enough, but what about the basic idea? The problem with that basic idea is that the Canadian Government has had the idea for decades that the Income Tax Act is a social program, not an instrument to generate revenue. If we could overcome that obstacle, we would only then have to contend with the thousands of irate tax lawyers, accountants, civil servants, and other assorted chiselers. It would also be hard on people whos income is kind of ambiguous. For instance, I'm a computer consultant part-time. I want to buy a 386. Does this get subtracted from my net income? What about the trips and phone calls I had to make to get my first contract? (Just my $0.02 contribution to can.taxlaw) -- Paul Tomblin, First Officer, Golgafrinchan B Ark | ADA was invented UUCP: nrcaer!cognos!geovision!pt ?? | because Vogon Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here aren't | Poetry wasn't necessarily even mine! | deadly enough.
TMCLELLA@UALTAVM.BITNET (Tim Mclellan) (08/25/89)
In article <723@geovision.UUCP>, pt@geovision.uucp (Paul Tomblin) writes: >the Income Tax Act is a social program, not an >instrument to generate revenue. If we could overcome that obstacle, we >would only then have to contend with the thousands of irate tax lawyers, >accountants, civil servants, and other assorted chiselers. Aren't there hundreds of thousands of irate tax payers? Whose running this country anyway 8{) ? >I'm a >computer consultant part-time. I want to buy a 386. Does this get >subtracted from my net income? What about the trips and phone calls I had >to make to get my first contract? How do you pay taxes on that now? The definition of income won't change, just the way you pay taxes on it. -- Tim McLellan University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada "Personal shopping only" ( I only work there ) Bitnet: TMCLELLA@UALTAVM.BITNET