tjiang (02/13/83)
But Chris, I do know what progressive and regressive means. My point is that our current income tax system which ostensibly is PROGRESSIVE is really REGRESSIVE. A flat and simple (I obmitted this very important adjective last time) tax system would still have loopholes but there would be far fewer and they would be easier to close. I feel that any simple tax system would necessary have a fixed rate. In a truly progressive system where the marginal tax rates increases with income, incentive is diminished. Who would want to work harder for more money when you get less in return! To solve this problem the government institutes other forms of incentives, i.e. tax incentives. Too many of these and our tax laws become complex. To sum it up: "progressive => complex" which is the contrapositive of "simple => fixed". I have omitted the case of regressive taxes but it is pretty clear why that wouldn't work. Tax incentives have turned out to be one the most pernicious weapon that a government has. The example by Brian Thomson just goes to shows that the government will even try to control our behaviour with these incentives. After all, 1984 is only a year away. Unfortunately, a simple tax system is unlikely to be implemented. P.S. I have read that personal income taxes are still a temporary measure enacted by the parliament to fund military action during WWI. Is this true? This is not the case in the US where the government's right to tax is entrenched in the sixteenth amendment.
laura (02/14/83)
My mother the Canadian history teacher teaches that income tax was a tempory measure instituted during WW1 which ought to go away forever if at all possible. Seeing as this seems unlikely, a flat rate seems a good alternative. William Buckley has been advocating this one for years - I believe that it is in "Up the Establishment" that he quotes exactly how this would change the U.S. tax structure and its social ramifications, but it could be another of his numerous books. I dont understand why taxing the rich heavily and the poor lightly is viewed as so "PROGRESSIVE", unless being rich is another thing which cannot be done in Ontario. (-: I would think that what one ought to do is define "poor" as less than some reasonable figure, and then have all the poor people send in a postcard in April saying "I am Poor". You can define "starving" at some other reasonable figure and have them send in a card saying "I am starving (postage due)" so that all the government agencies interested in do-gooding can identify them and send them relief money (welfare, whatever). Of course there will still be slugs who send in "I am starving" when they should be paying their 20% (or whatever), but this is no different from what some lawyers are charging millions of dollars a year to do in complicated ways right now. Since you dont want to can *all* those government paper-shufflers who handle our income tax forms, you can give them the job of taking 5% of each return and giving it to the appropriate Health Insurance Plan. If this gets popular, one might even get to say where one would like one miserable tenth of what one pays to go -- mine can go to the Canadian Satellite Development, please. laura creighton utzoo!laura