BobW --- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> > If there's no limit to how much the ambitious, or
> > greedy, can work and make, then wouldnt you wind
> up
> > with the same priviledged and possessing class we
> > now have?
>
> I'm willing to tolerate that if they pay (only a
> little!) more tax, and
> the ones at the bottom get taken care of humanely.
> So: that's a step
> up from what we have today, a big one.
>
> > Maybe the first piece of a reformed tax system
> would
> > have to be a ban or limit on inherited wealth.
>
> That breaks my first rule: one tax system. If you
> can't get all the
> money you need from the first tax system, adding a
> second one just
> makes things worse. Isn't that really the problem?
> You have things
> you want; you don't have enough revenue to pay for
> them.
>
> My solution: raise taxes. The only other
> alternative is to lower your
> expectations of what you want.
>
> Now, that being said, it's my guess that if we
> didn't have so many
> other regressive taxes out there (gas taxes, payroll
> taxes, sales
> taxes) that the actual percentages involved would
> probably go down.
> It's criminal that, as Warren Buffett says, a
> secretary pays more
> (percentage-wise, which is what counts!) into SS
> than a bond salesman.
>
> > If you use progressive taxation to control the
> > accumulation of wealth, then you might take away
> the
> > incentive to work.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> > Also, to make the whole system really
> > fair, you'd have to be sure there were no
> advantages
> > of education given to one group or another.
>
> All you have to do is make the baseline package
> "enough" and you're
> done: housing, medical care, food. The rest can
> stay the same. Note:
> this is not a package to make everyone equal, it's a
> package that gives
> everyone a realistic mimimum. Right now the minimum
> is practically
> zero (yes Max, I know about things like the EITC).
>
> At that point, the only way to lower taxes is to
> make the machine that
> spits out the baseline benefit more efficient. And
> by more efficient I
> mean getting rid of fraud, waste, and abuse; I don't
> mean by cutting
> benefits :-)
>
> I'd say that would incent some of the bigger
> companies and individuals
> to find ways to help the government do its job for
> cheaper. Right now
> it's far easier to spend that kind of effort on
> avoiding taxation
> rather than bringing down the cost of what it is
> we're buying.
>
> /jordan
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>