I don't think there's much disagreement that one aspect of tax policy is to fund government. There are all sorts of arguments about how to do that and how much to do that but that funding is one aspect isn't really argued. There is another aspect that is frequently forgotten, that is to encourage or discourage various things economically.
If you're going to fund the government you have to decide how to get the income needed. One element that has been in operation for a long time is progressive taxation. That name has nothing to do with political labels, it refers to the concept that the tax burden increases as income climbs. Two ideas underpin this concept, one is that some can better afford the funding process than those poorer and the second is the recognition that a system like capitalism vastly better benefits capital (a nice way of saying wealth) and those most benefitted ought to pay for that. (despite moocher/taker propaganda, high income levels get much more usage of the governmental system than lower) What is discussed right here has nothing to do with encouraging/discouraging behaviors, it is simply about funding government.
There are various proposals for tax structures with some of the most prevalent ones being flat tax, VAT tax, and some variations of sales tax. The difficulty with these is that they shift the tax burden down onto those least able to afford them and least benefitting from what they pay for. The claims that these systems are more fair totally ignores what capitalism is and how it works. It also ignores what progressive means in taxation of actual dollars. Each segment of income is taxed exactly the same whether you make a little or billions, you only pay a higher rate on the dollars above the preceding bracket. You can argue about what a government ought to do, but you cannot argue that it must be paid for.
Things start to get sticky where taxation is used as the blunt instrument of behavior modification. This is also where abuse starts to factor in, particularly the abuse of access to political power. The government would like to discourage cigarette smoking by taxing the product at a high rate to increase its cost and purportedly cover increased health costs. As a cigarette smoker (Camel straights) I don't much like paying that, but I find it hard to oppose, other than the inequality of such taxation in regard to more favored provably harmful products like alcohol. That inequality is an example of access, not that tobacco didn't once have it. Corporations are handed behavioral tax treatments that can result in them not only not paying taxes, but actually being paid. The idea that investment must be especially encourage results in a tax rate on capital gains that is less than one half the top rate for wage/salary.
Now I'm going to propose something that hasn't a snowball's chance in hell, thanks to who owns government, but isn't real complicated. First the tax brackets should be tied to the national median income and be set at multiples of that number in each year. Those multiples would start as fractions and move in to whole numbers with ALL income forms treated under the same regimen and remove a top on tax brackets. It makes no sense to treat a couple hundred thousand dollar income the same as multi-million dollar income in a tax bracket. The final part is that a top bracket should be in the 90% range to discourage the taking of every last bit out of the economic system. The lowering of the top bracket has resulted, understandably, in large income groups taking everything they can extract. There was a simple reason CEO pay used to be single digit multiples of a company's average wage rather than double and triple digit multiples - the high tax rate discouraged it and that money stayed in the company system, meaning wages and re-investment. It is simple enough to understand that if you tell people they can take anything they have the power to take, those without that power will lose it to those with it.
It would take a lot of pages to cover what income is and this isn't a good forum to do it, I'd like it not to be so long nobody will read it. If you have something to add other than insults and stupid name calling, use the comments here and I'll engage.
5 comments:
I like your article with a clear discussion and easy to understand its contents. I hope your site DEWA JUDI QQ
DominoQQ can provide inspiration for those of us who are writing. thanks again, i am waiting for the next article
I found this on internet and it is really very nice.
An excellent blog.
Great work!
Each YouTube channel has its style of content and its unique brand personality. That's why the idea of "one length fits all" received't paintings for the YouTube channel artwork creation process.
https://socialfollowerspro.uk/
To make matters more straightforward for you, we've got to give you some clean tips to inform you about the ideal size for a channel artwork, the safe sector location within the channel art, and where you ought to area your most critical components like textual content and snapshots so that they are seen on all devices.
Nothing compares to being authentic. And Instagram Live offers you this opportunity. You cannot expect every step of the manner, even if you plan it thoroughly ahead.
Buy Instagram followers Malaysia
Since life is inevitable, so can be your Instagram Live. The great part about it is that your face can not lie when you speak about your merchandise, campaigns or emblem. Therefore, be equipped to be transparent while imparting everything in your fans.
Thechesswebsite presently has 577k subscribers and around 470 movies, amounting to a view be counted of over 111 million. This channel uploads movies numerous instances a month and has been around on the grounds that February 2009.
buy youtube views uk
Run with the aid of a competitive participant, this channel posts videos referring to the policies of the game, strategies, recommendations and tricks, variations, sport evaluation, and greater.
Post a Comment