OK, there is a start. So, having established that taxes are necessary for any nation, can you also accept that there is a minimum tax level that is required to pay for essential government resources? And that the price of being a Superpower requires even more expenditure?
If you accept this, then it is only a matter of establishing what the essential government resources are, add the necessary requirements of global Superpower military and economic status, and perhaps a few optional but highly desired government entities like the National Park System, NASA and the Smithsonian, etc. Then we subtract the income we receive from debts and interest owed us by other countries, sales of public leases, property and assets, and other non-tax income. The resulting number, $x, is what we must raise in taxes each year to avoid borrowing.
If we establish these essential, necessary, and desired resources through the democratic process, then it is only a matter of deciding what taxation level is needed to attain $x and add a bit each year to pay down the existing debt. Are you with me so far?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that $x amounts to 25% of the annual personal income of Americans. Then a flat tax of 25% for all income with no exceptions, loopholes, credits exemptions, or other legitimate tax dodges would achieve this. A progressive tax would lower the rate for the poorest x% of us which would be made up by raising the rate for the richest x% of us. We can argue which is best later. Stay with me.
So, a strict adherence to the formula suggested above would theoretically allow us to determine the optimum taxation rate needed for the nation to achieve what it must do, must try to do, and would like to do. Theoretically we could establish the $x balance point between income and spending that would result in Americans having confidence that they are paying reasonable taxes for the desired national requirements.
Again theoretically, it would allow the public to decide what national requirements they favor and what ones they do not. It would allow the balance point to shift with changes in the national situation. People could, through their representatives in Congress, establish just how much social security and medicare benefits they are willing to pay for in taxes. They could influence Congress as to which agencies are superfluous and which ones are vital. They could get more of what they favor (and are willing to pay for) and endure less of what they don't approve of.
Political realities do not seem to favor the kind of reasonable negotiations and compromises necessary to position sliding balance points effectively.
Click to expand...