Expanded IRAs would reduce income tax revenue, so sure that would have to be replaced by some combination of new revenue, spending cuts, & a higher (than otherwise) deficit.
As an enviro you might be congenial to heavier taxation of consumption, which is what this all entails, in the context of an individual income-cum-consumption tax with exemptions, a standard deduction, and graduated rates. In my underground unpublished masterpiece on progressive consumption taxation, I point out that an individual income tax is a very cumbersome way to tax bequests (estates), since absent that you could tax all income when consumed rather than when received (which is what you are doing with a fully flexible, universal IRA). Natch, there are good reasons to stick with an income tax as well. On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Gar Lipow <[email protected]> wrote: . . . > > Sure I have no objection to supplementing social security. We can > argue about whether "savings accounts" are really a good way to do it. > But if it is to be universal, as you said, it has to be subsidized. > Where is the money for that going to come from. And if it is done as > part of a "Fix" for social security are they going to be able to risk > at least a modest raid? _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
