jrc (02/11/83)
I think that the real point of the messages from Steve and others is that the present income tax system is far too complex, and that ANY set system of tax is better than what we have. Being middle class types, they perceive the present effective income tax curve as having a big rate bulge in the middle, and a quick fall to zero in the high incomes. This is because of tax incentives and "loopholes" designed to encourage certain kinds of investment and ersatz philanthropy. The suggestion that there be a fixed rate is not really a suggestion to solve perceived "unfairness" of progressive tax, but rather as a blanket policy which includes an elimination of tax incentives in the bargain. I too am for elimination of any and all tax incentives, especially those relating to political contribution. On the other hand, it is clear to me that we should continue to use a progressive tax scheme rather than fixed rate. Jim.
thomson (02/11/83)
I have long felt that the only reasonable tax scheme is to increase the basic deductions (personal and dependents) so they reflect the real cost of basic (maybe even poverty-level) subsistence, then tax any income after that at a flat rate. Eg. the deductions for a single person should amount to $8k or so, a family of 4 maybe $12k. I was particularly peeved when Judy Erola recommended that the deduction system be fiddled to encourage procreation. It is an indicator of the incredible arrogance of our federal government that she would even consider your and my fecundity the business of the Feds (the same government that had 'no business in the bedrooms of the nation', remember?) and consider the basic tax deductions (which I believe should reflect how much money you *need*) appropriate tools of Cabinet policy.