I am re-posting this to start a discussion...
My #1 issue is fairness. Here's my idea, one of the principles of what I'm calling The Fairness Doctrine:
Principle # 2: Fair, flat income tax w/ no deductions
All individuals and organizations who earn money are part of the financial back bone of our society:
a- Each profit making, corporate entity gives 30% of its annual revenues as taxes to the State where it does business.
b- Each individual gives 20% of his/her annual income to the state
where he/she has his primary residence.
c- Each non-profit entity gives 10% of its annual revenue to the State where the revenue is earned.
d- Each State shares its revenues 50/50 with the Federal government.
Let's see if this one does it...
RB
Hurray! You made it! I hope we all have fun doing this! I can try to put a picture on this post if you want.
ReplyDeleteNow, about the flat tax. My problem with it is that for me, what's small for a high income bracket is large for a low income bracket. And you'd better be pretty healthy and lucky in life for no deductions. A flat percentage sounds better, but we need to stop and prevent deficits, so we need enough revenue. It's a bit Utopian, but those who can, should pay the necessary amount.
The idea of a flat tax rate for all is seductive, but I don't think we're at a place yet where that would be fair to the majority of us. Taking 20% of the income of someone making 7.65/hour at minimum wage is not the same as taking 20% of the investment income of a hedge fund manager. The economic playing field has tilted so far towards the top 1 and 2 percent in the last 30 years that we need a radical reshifting to a living wage and to pay commesurate to work performed before a flat tax would work the way I think you intend. As for distribution of revenue to the states, we would need to bring states like Mississippi up to New York or Massachusetts (instead of dragging all of us down to Mississippi!) before returning the same fixed percentage of revenues to all. And, I agree with George that right now we need the revenue (althought I do not agree with our Republican House members that the place to get it is by cutting any program that could possibly help the working class or the poor.) I think that to get us out of our economics straits those who have more, and who have benefitted from 30 years of tax cuts, should now contribute more. As the Russian proverb says, "One must pluck the rich: the poor are bare."
ReplyDeleteI agree about it not being the same taking 20% from someone making minimum wage as it is taking the same 20% from someone making millions. But, you miss the main point- fairness and a sense of everyone pulling together. As it turns out in our convoluted, tens of thousands of pages of regulations tax codes, along with the ability of the rich to avoid paying taxing through legal and quasi-legal means, they wind up paying MUCH LESS than their fair share while the middle class gets screwed- again. If we eliminate 90% of the IRS (except for the IT/computer section for collection) we solve the budget deficit in one fell swoop, not in 10 to 15 years. And we also start to build some sorty of semblance that we are all in this together, equally. No GE making 13 billion, paying $0 (!!!) and getting a $3 billion subsidy from the Federal government.
ReplyDeleteWe do have way too much government but most of it is, unfortunately, in place to serve the interests of the corporate/ professional elite and very little is in place to serve most people. We need a department of consumer affairs advocating for the rights of individuals. We need ombudsman at every level of government serving the interests of the people.
I submit fairness is the first step in the right direction. A new paradigm. Thinking out of the box.
Ron, getting rid of the IRS solves nothing. Getting rid of tax loopholes, streamlining and stronger enforcement of the rules would make the job of forcing the rich to pay their fair share is much better.
ReplyDeleteAs for the flat tax, once again I have to ask, is it fair for a farmer to ask his toddlers to uproot an old oak's stump, when one of his bigger kids handle that same stump? The stump, being fair, won't change size. It's relatively peanuts for the big kid, but virtually impossible for the toddler.
A fairer deal is to ask the toddler to feed the small livestock like chickens, ducks pigs - the dog, and sweep up the floor, while Big wrangles the larger beasts, and helps the farmer clear the field. Everyone gets the task they are ready for. And the work gets done.
And you pay the taxes that you can bear. Otherwise you don't get nothin' when the poor are exhausted!