Quote:
Originally Posted by Aezeal
Somewhat more than 38% of people will get money, when they pay nothing.
Something like 50% will get a tax decrease.
And something like 5% will get a huge increase.
what can I say... sounds good?
|
Aezeal, it may surprise you to know that I believe we need to increase what the poor and middle class earn. And I believe that insofar as obama gives wealth to the lowest part of our economy, that he will actually help in pulling us out of the economic prolems we are in.
However, there are good ways, and bad ways to accomplish that.
I am *all* in favor of increasing aid and grants to education.
I am all in favor of giving micro loans so people can start businesses. I am in favor of increasing the minimum wage carefully so that it doesn't cause job loss.
However, using our tax code to do this is wrong.
First, at over 10,000 pages our tax code is already ridiculous. It takes an army of accountants and lawyers to figure it out - and if you can't figure it out - correctly - you're at risk.
Second, the cost of complying with the tax code is huge and non productive - and there are lots of both productive and non productive taxes in our system.
When the government taxes a sale, for example - the government gets some money. Theoretically we all benefit. The hidden kinds of taxes are when the government makes a regulation and the benefits are non existent.
Say for example you are driving - you come to a stop sign. You stop, wait your turn and then proceed. There is no traffic for miles around - you are in the middle of nebraska.
You had to stop - at risk of getting a ticket etc. It had a cost to you - it took 2 minutes out of your day, costs you gas to accelerate again. But the point is.. in this particular case - no one benefited.
In the same way, an inpenetrable tax code benefits no one - and is in fact a hidden tax on all of us.
Second:
Mixing missions is bad policy. The purpose of the IRS should be to collect taxes. Its performance can be measured. How well did it collect taxes. How many audits did it do.. etc
Once you give another role to our tax code - collecting funds AND redistributing wealth, and promoting education, and promoting home ownership, and promoting social equality - how do you measure the success of our tax code?
Every one decries tax loopholes - but here you are saying its a good thing because it benefits you personally.
Transparent politics is letting the tax code stand on its own - and then setting up a separate program - to increase home ownership - to increase education. And each of these programs can stand on its own feet - and be measured.
Im not saying this is 100% possible - but it is a goal that should be achieved as much as feasible.
Finally:
There is the old saying - give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
Benjamin Franklin said something like - the poor should not be made comfortable in poverty - then should be lead, or if necessary, driven from it.
Look, welfare reform pushed by republicans and signed by clinton was an enormous success in getting people off the welfare roles and into jobs.
We need to make jobs and living wages *more* possible for everyone, not make it easier for more people to live in welfare, which is what just giving people money is.