--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you're wrong...the democrats want a 1cent increase in the > sales tax across the board, that affects everybody,and is bad for > business. We already have one of the highest sales tax across the country. >
I think we can all agree that taxes, generally, reduce the activity that is being taxed. Tax incentives generally increase a valued activity. So our values are reflected in our tax system. By implication, and corresponding tax rates, our society really dislikes technology, productivity, higher wages and employment. And strong frowns upon making a living, earning money. And it highly favors a consumption society,disfavoring savings and investing what we defer from spending today (Ben Franklin is cringing in his grave). We as a society don't value and are not wild about education and health. And we LOVE pollution. Are these our true collective values? Are these values supported by tons of economic research to increase standards of living, and enabling far more than today to lead healthy, productive, fulfilling and prosperous lives? Not so much. Tax changes can be tax neutral if an increase in one tax -- for things we don't like, are offset by the lowering of taxes that we do like. "No new taxes" is an idiot's clarion call. What is needed are changes in the tax code that better reflect our collective values. Increasing taxes on things we don't like, and lowering or eliminating them, even offering tax incentives, on the things we want to see more of in society. This balance can result in no increase in the overall tax people pay right now. ( And for reasons of power, influence and equity issues, if as a society we don't like people with more than $20-100 million, or family trusts beyond that or some multiple), then that too can be highly taxed -- if the re is a consensus.) Are education and health good. An emphatic hell yeah! And they are vastly underfunded. Tey have the highest return of any investment. Are savings and investment good. Though this may be a stretch for the economics-challenge, but as 1000s of peer reviewed paper, common sense and experience reveal, hell yeah! Savings and investment are the fuel for research and development, new technology, and the huge cost of creating the productive infrastructure to build, test it and ship it -- that is, to get it to the people. Which increases productivity ("aka, do less (use less resources) and accoplish more". Increased productivity is THE factor which most effects higher wages and salaries. And more time to spend with kids, helping the community and pursuing our vision / happiness. Does mortgage deducability increase housing prices, promote larger houses, gated communities, increase the demand for water, sewars and roads -- and lock more and more people out of being able to afford a house? Hell yeah. Is pollution good for personal health, aesthtics, health of the eco system? An emphatic hell no! Anyone see any opportunities for tax-revenue improvements here? In genreral, a high tax on carbon, sulpher, nox, pm10, nuclear waste, etc would decrease these things. Would eliminating tax deductions for housing, and placing a tax on larger homes make homes more affordable for all -- while reducing rents for renters? And reducig the dmand for incresingly precious clean water, heat-sink producing roads, etc. Hell yes. Spending some of that tax revenue on eliminating taxes on ALL health and education expenses -- and providing substantially increased incentives for such will increase education and health. These two areas have the highest return of all available social investments. Hard to overspend. The more spent, the smarter, productive, happy, and progressive the nation and world becomes. Would spending part of the increased tax revenue on reducing social security and income taxes by half, and taxes on savings and and invetments -- eliminating all such for taxable incomes up to say 60-100,000 -- increase jobs, technological advances, the doubling rate of knowledge, productivity and general prosperity. Hell yeah. Would doing all of this in a rational and thoughtful way increase anyone's overall tax burden significantly? Hell No. Why can't we and the country get beyond partisian blinders and agendas? High carbon taxes AND low income and capital gains taxes are both good things if you like current ocean levels, the survival of 500 million species and think (rational and ethical) technological progress, collective productivity gains, and increased prosperity are good things. John Haglin was right on at least one thing: Let valid research strongly guide policy. Particularly tax policy. And for those that value personal responsibility and freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, lets eliminate all the laws against activities we don't like, that don't harm others, and simply tax them. Tax em high if you really hate something, but don't make outlaws of people who disagree with your morals. I think we can all agree that taxes, generally, reduce the activity that is being taxed. Tax incentives generally increase a valued activity. So our values are reflected in our tax system. Lets be true to our values, lets make rational and research-based choices, lets have our hearts and minds manifest a true and clear vision of possibilities. And lets have massive fun doing it. This is not sacrifice. This is neither society first, country first, or individual first. Its a step of progress on all fronts. Lets breathe, lets step forward. There is no better time than NOW.