For John, BLUF: If we are going to raise taxes, let's get free loaders, like Hollywood and non-profits. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Before we go over the Fiscal Cliff, let's consider some modest tax law changes. Besides going after Hollywood, what about revolving door senior government appointees and elected officials. Here is a suggestion of a 50% Surtax on the difference between their new salary and their old, government, salary (time limit of five years).
Regards — Cliff
6 comments:
I like the thinking. To that short list of new suggestions I'd add churches and churchmen and women who talk politics. Fair is fair, and they should be required to pay the same entrance fee to play the political game as the rest of us.
FLAT TAX!!!! No screwing around with cute little gimmicks and games. If you live in America...breathe American air......drink American water.....and use all the wonderful infrastructure available....you need to pay the percentage. The whiners say that it isn't fair to "poor folks" because 10% of what they make is a lot larger than 10% of $250,000 (or pick your own number). Well....10% is 10%....don't like it? Go somewhere else, maybe Greece. Don't want to pay it because you want the government to take care of you....fine....go to Federal prison....and we'll take care of you there.
Oh....and while we are at it.....how about a budget with no "accounting" tricks. What you take in is all you can spend....PERIOD.
Way back when we who have served careers in the military discovered that the "free medical care" we were all "promised" was going away.....we of course protested that we were promised.....and the response from the DoD and the Congress was essentially...."Do you have that in writing??" Its high time a bunch of freeloaders need to be confronted with the same response....that ought to save a T or two.....
Neal has it right. Flat tax--no loopholes. Everybody puts the same percentage of skin in the game. Period. Give everybody their first 10 or 20 thousand for free. Then hit everybody with the same deal with no exceptions. ESPECIALLY Congresspeople.
The notion that flatness is fair depends on the assumption that a dollar of fiscal 'pain' is equal for any two people. That seems absurd on it's face. The $1,000 of 'pain' from someone making $20,000 is not equivalent to $5,000 of 'pain' from someone making $100,000. This is the essence of why flat taxes are inherently regressive. The former is an example of a hardship that might make you homeless.
Flat taxes spread money hits proportionally, but fiscal 'pain' is tilted toward the poor.
I think if we accept Kad's proposal for exclusion of the first $20,000, the numbers change. Then it would be ZIP for someone earning $20K, $1,000 for someone earning $40K and $4,000 for someone earning $100K. I think we could work in a version of Richard Nxon's Earned Ncome Tax Credit.
Regards — Cliff
That's the logic exactly, Cliff.
It's confounding that folks insist that a flat tax with a preliminary exclusion is "regressive" when it's not. (Given that free ride for the first set amount of income). These same folks are scandalized that the rich get away with a lower rate under the present regime!!! Yet when given an opportunity to ensure the rich will always pay a HIGHER rate (because that first bit of income is a freebie for everyone) they retreat back into the fear that somehow straight seventh grade math (with no gotchas or loopholes!) can't be trusted.
Post a Comment