Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Pardon me if this is oversimplistic, but isn't that as much, if not more, a function of the fact that you make only a small fraction of what the wealthiest Americans make than it is a result of the Bush tax cuts?
A trip to Six Flags for your income level may be comparable to the purchase of a small yacht for Shaq or A-Rod, or a very big yacht for Larry Ellison.
ETA: The progressive system is the problem. The debate would end if we'd do the sensible, just and proper thing and install a flat tax, but that would put too many lawyers and accountants out of business. It would also rob the two useless parties of their favorite issue to exploit.
|
I'd be in favor of a flat tax, notwithstanding that it would put me out of a job, if were in fact a
flat tax. However, the current "flat tax" proposals don't impose any tax on capital gains. That's not flat. The proposal would also provide breaks for income from savings. In other words, it would shift the entire tax burden to wage earners.
A tax that was imposed at say, a 15% rate on all income in excess of, say, $25,000/year. would support current expenditures and reduce the deficit. I would vote for any candidate that supported such a tax as the main plank of em's platform.
But that means, no tax breaks on dividends or capital gains. No more mortgatge interest deduction or deduction for property taxes. No charitable deduction. And a VAT for corporations and other business enterprises not operated as a sole proprietorship or passthrough entity.
However, you're right, Congress would never enact a flat tax that was actually flat.
