> Isn't a flat tax as regressive as you can get (short of charging a > percentage inversely proportional to income)? It hits the poor a lot > harder than the rich, surely. In your example above, 5% of > $10,000,000 means one less condo in Lake Tahoe, new Bentley for the > mistress, or splurge in Vegas... big deal. But 5% of $20K means > Grandma doesn't get her heart medicine, or the kids don't get new > winter coats. BIG deal.
Not surely. (Nobody earning 20k a year can afford heart medicine at all. [And why is it always heart medicine in the example? It's just as likely to be beer that is forgone.]) That line of argument has been proven to result in severely 'progressive' taxation, such as the 90+% rates that have been seen for the 'rich' in the past. (Rich being defined as anyone making just enough more than the median income of voters, and/or anyone _thought_ to be able to have a condo in Tahoe or a Bentley.) The trouble with that is that it is an extreme DIS-incentive for those proven productive to become more productive. Want a Bentley? Want to have to work several times harder to get one than your not-so-rich neighbor? No? Then don't bother, and who suffers? Bentley, for example. And anyone who works there, such as the production line laborers. Or else the 'rich' leave the country, or at least move their business off to more friendly climes. An interesting thing about luxury goods is that they are often very labor-intensive. Anyone notice what happened to the Eastern US yacht-building industry when the oh-so-progressive luxury tax was first applied a few years ago? Tax those rich, yes sir, and put a lot of laborers right out on the street. I'm in favor of a flat-rate tax system. It's extremely fair. Nobody can bitch about it, unless they've already been taught that because they are 'poorer' they are more 'special'. You want to see righteous anger, see how society would treat the rich that tried to squirm out of their 5% (or whatever) taxes. You make a dollar, give a nickel to Uncle Sam. You make a million, give him $50,000. Your 'poor' guy smokes a few less cigarettes, your 'rich' guy buys one less car. But _both_ of them keep most of what they earn, and if human nature stays constant, later spend most of that. (And that's the big win in this scenario.) I could perhaps be talked into a poverty-level exemption, below which there were no taxes, but that would open up the game to endlessly moving that line around (upwards, I'd imagine), and it would place a huge barrier (or an incentive to deception) at the point where you rose above the line. It would have to be set at a level that was truly poverty, such that NOBODY would want to stay on the low side of it. And I think little enough of human nature that it wouldn't stay there long. Best to set a flat rate and be done with it. You change the rate and it affects EVERYBODY, none of that BS about voting a tax change for somebody else. (And that's the truly evil part of our system today.) A flat tax system is a unifying influence, instead of a divisive one. Our society could use a few more of those, it seems. -- Jim _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
