This article is interesting because it reflects a Liberal's view of the "flat tax." (here) Here's an excerpt from the article, but suffice to say, the (Liberal) author is most concerned about giving gov't the power to redistribute income.
"Whatever the actual advantages of a flat income tax might be, the conservatives surely must appreciate the fact that flat taxes make government redistribution of income much, much harder. This could well be the real reason why this misguided proposal has cropped up again."To which I'd reply, where do I sign up?
4 comments:
I don't know about "redistributing income" as I don't support cash welfare payments. However, I do support a progressive income tax, because it makes sense to take into consideration the disposable income of the person you are taxing. 25% to a person making 15K means a hell of a lot more to them then 25% of a person making 200K. Sure, the 200K person gives more money, but the 15K person needs that 25% a hell of a lot more.
It would be great if we could run the type of Government we need, on a 15-25% flat tax, but that simply isn't the case.
Well, the article is enlightening, because it manifests the author's view that she can discern what level of sacrifice or "felt burden" is "fair." Boy is that subjective, too subjective for governing a free people.
As you and I have argued about before, it is astonishing to me that someone feels that gov't has a greater claim on one citizen's property than on another citizen's property.
It's not that the Gov't has a "greater claim" to a person's property. The Gov't, via a Constitutional Amendment, has the power to tax income. It simply makes more economic sense to receive more of that money from those who have more disposable income than from those who have less. It's an economic issue, not a "fairness" issue.
I don't really implement the "fairness" factor--that's the Left's tactic, but the question of what amount of someone's property is "disposable" is rather subjective and who says it economically "makes more sense" to make certain people pay more for the same (typically less) gov't services? The equal protection or or fairness issue aside, don't you think there's a point at which people will be less motivated to earn/create/produce more "disposable income" based on higher tax rates?
Post a Comment