From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 12:29:27 MDT
owner-extropians@extropy.org wrote:
> matus wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> While I am opposed to progressive taxes, (and involuntary taxation
>> for that matter) if we are going to have both, then I have a
>> suggestion. Why not just elimate that bottom 50% of wage earners
>> from the income tax, I mean, c'mon! It would amount to a 4% tax cut
>> to income tax revenue, some of which would be negated by how much
>> would be saved by the IRS only dealing with 140 million people
>> instead of 280 million. Any politician who proposed this on a
>> presidential ticket could get 140 million votes. This would be a
>> particularly wise move for republicans in congress to present, as
>> the overall change in the tax burden is minimal (or nill if a 4%
>> budget cut is associated with the relief for the bottom 50% of wage
>> earners) and Democrats will have a significant thing to whine about
>> wiped off their agenda. Though they still may cry 'those tax cuts
>> only benefit the rich' if any further cuts occur.
>>
>> Michael Dickey
>>
> It wouldn't work because most people see themselves as being in the
> upper 50% of the population in income, or expect that they will be
> next year. This is clearly impossible, but people tend to be
> optomistic. My personal thought on the matter is that taxes should be
> on a simple: tax = rate * income - povertylevel
> basis. With all sources of cash counted as income, and no exemptions
> for any reason.
### Generally I like this idea (you might find references to the "universal
transaction tax" I advocated in posts last year), but it is not easy to work
out all the details. E.g., how do you define total income? If I a grocer
sells you an item, is the cash he receives income? A part of it?
Introducing the universal tax on all transactions would mean a massive
change in commerce, including some very strange effects on land values. A
very complex and sticky issue.
--------------------------
If you want to subsidize something, do it outside of
> the tax code. This provides incentive to all people at every income
> level to increase their income, and doesn't leave anyone to "starve in
> the dark".
### Definitely yes.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 09:39:28 MDT