*chirp, chirp* Can you hear that folks? It is the sound of nothing. That is right no response at all. I did not think I asked that hard of a question. I thought it was a pretty simple one actually. But, I understand people are busy and have a lot going on with the holidays and their daily lives. So I will forgive them this one time. But, if I am transgressed upon just one more time then the forgiveness will not be forthcoming. Now, as for Joel and Sherry, or Sherry and Joel because we all know ladies come first, I give them each a gold star and move them to the front of the class. I hope the rest of you realize what an honor this is for both of them and will strive to achieve the same. As for the others well "Your revolution is over! Condolences. The bums lost."
But back to the 2% tax idea. It is interesting to me to note that Sherry doesn't like the idea because she thinks:
"it's reasonable to ask those that make more to pay a higher percentage"
She also raised a good question about the absence of deductions and what that would mean for people with children as well as would it apply to corporations or just the workers. Both of these are valuable questions and ones that I do not have the answer to. I am in agreement with her on it being reasonable to ask people who make more to pay more. But, I think that the way the tax code is and the presence of deductions makes it so those that make more can often afford the lawyers they need to use the deductions to pay less then those who make less. One benefit I see of the flat-tax model is that with out deductions the wiggle room gets taken out. 2% is 2% and no amount of dancing is going to change that. So while it might be hard for some to pay that amount. I would think that for others we might actually be collecting more then they currently pay.
Now Joel coming at this from a more conservative position then Sherry states that:
"I would only support a flat tax if it replaced the system already in place. I cannot support more taxation, I can support a different type of tax, just not more."
That is a valid point Joel makes. He does not have a problem with taxes in general, he has a problem with the poor use or in some cases criminal use of these funds. I am in agreement with Joel on this, I feel that there are provisions in the Constitution that allow for the support of the populace and that the way this happens is by taxation. The differences for most of us come in to play when we start talking about the specific things that the money goes for.
When I think about the way we are taxed in the great state of Oregon I feel that if we were to drop the personal income tax and replace it with some form of a VAT or a Sales Tax we might just be better off in the long term. Now, that is just a hunch and I have not done extensive research on the issue but I would be willing to be educated so please feel free to let me know how I wrong I am please do so.
That is it for today. I hope everyone where ever you are has a good day and please feel free to join the conversation.
2 comments:
My suck-up self is proud to get a gold star. :)
The present tax system is pulling in enough money (more than enough) for the federal government's constitutional duties. The problem is that the federal government has extended its spending beyond constitutional boundaries and now wants more money.
The answer is to contract to proper boundaries and we won't need more taxes. Now as I've noted before here (in days past) I prefer a VAT over an income tax, but it would have to be very carefully restricted and limited or the government would go nuts with it. Federal withholding is difficult to sense - its less painful than paying at the end of the year, for example.
But a VAT is nearly invisible, its just higher prices, so congress could boost it regularly with a few votes and people wouldn't feel it as much. So they'd need strong and difficult to change restraints to control the lust for money (and thus power) that politicians all suffer from.
Because the present tax system does not touch a large sector of the economy, a VAT replacing the federal income tax (and social security withholding) would not need to be at as high a percentage to pull in the same amount of money.
Don't be surprised when you don't get many comments though: I have 10 times the readers and rarely get any.
Post a Comment