I do not believe that all republicans hate gays and women. No more than I believe that all Republicans wake up in the morning wishing that they could discover new and unique ways to pollute the environment or that Democrats wake up in the morning brimming with excitement at the prospect of finding someone, anyone, to have an abortion. Because I disagree with someone else's ideas does not mean that I believe they are bad people. I have many friends and family who are extremely conservative.
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.
With no loopholes, I would assume 25% is to much. I also believe it is absurd that you actually think more taxation will pay down the debt. The ONLY way we will pay down the debt is to grow out of it. These national requirements you speak of, handle that bullshit at the state level. Keep the federal tax low and simple. Let it pay for only a few things. The social things some people like/hate can be done state to state.
There is no reason to speak of raising taxes without fixing the system. That is why it is my opinion that any option to raise taxes with out reform is a ploy and those who support it are all in on stupid.
I tend to agree Pride. The debate about whether to raise or lower taxes is both false and used to stir people (on both sides) up. The major problem with the tax system is that is has been pushed pulled twisted etc to meet a moment's issue. Take capital gains it was cut to encourage participation in the stock market at a time it was struggling. There are other examples like the home mortage deduction which were started for social engineering reasons. We need a flatter tax with fewer deductions and probably a floor where no taxes are owed (somewhere under $40k for singles and $50K for families). We also need to raise the retirement age from where it is now at least 5 years for all under 55. An exception made for those who have hard labor jobs. Likewise the deduction for FICA should not be capped for any salary. There are a lot of specific points but basically we have an early 20th century program to bring in state income and need to bring it into the 21st and recognze how things have changed.
I like this post. Keep in mind that there are people that will say their deduction is just as worthwhile as the hard labor exception for older workers (which i like). And they keep coming back year after year. Passing your idea would be difficult; maintaining it will be damn near impossible.
Yes it will be hard to pass and certainly impossible to hold. However we need a periodic reset. Reagan did it and it was needed. Since then both sides have played on the margins. The result is the mess we have and the foolish argument on both sides. If and when there is a rationalization to the tax code we will need to do it again in 20 years or so. That is ok and the way a open society works. We are dynamic and as long as we stay that way we will be ok.
Yes, we have to update our policies to keep them real; BUT we have to have some sort of stability also. So a balance of change that stays relevant, but does not change so often that businesses can not plan for the future with some degree of certainty.
