--- 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.
