Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
The current system is broken. Maybe it can be fixed, maybe not.
Replacing it with a consumption tax is out of the question. First, I have read some analysis of such a tax system that demonstrates the rate would exceed 30%. Second, and more important, it does nothing but shift the tax burden to the lower-middle and lower classes. There are certain things in life that everyone purchases or are essential requirements. Low-mid and lower classes spend most of the income on these things. Upper class spend essentially none of their income of these things. Lower classes will then be able to afford less of these essential items while the upper classes will simply export their purchasing of high-ticket items, shelter those purchases in a business, or transfer ownership via some new loop hole.
Change the exemption level to somewhere around $100k or $200k and maybe you'll have something.
A progressive tax system is an absolute requirement in a capitalistic country due to the inherent money-based power structure of the political system (money buys you power - in other countries, we call that bribery, but since we're "great" we call it lobbying). The rich require higher taxes.
|
This represents the classic opposition points that you will see against these type of proposals.
First, the 30% or higher number is bogus, in my opinion. I haven't found one shred of evidence to support this. The only time numbers this high come up is when a wacky plan is introduced (which means that the proposal won't even be considered) or in opposition to this plan (note: I already mentioned Pelosi and McIntyre which have published articles stating the exact points mentioned above). There are about 3-4 proposals being looked at seriously right now. Of those proposals, which ones have rates exceeding 30%?
Also, the main cruxt of the plan is that the rate will go down considerably over time because, in theory, more money will be brought in.
And, no, the poor and the middle class won't be hurt more on this plan. The numbers completely contradict any assertions like this. Changing the "free" number to $100,000 or over would completely negate the idea of this plan. That thinking is classic redistributionist and not a school of thought I even remotely belong to.