Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
In that case - what we have now has been working for decades. Maybe with some minor tweaks here and there it will be fine for decades and decades more. Why throw it all away if all you're looking for is the success we have already proven?
|
First, I have yet to see anyone back up the claim that our current system is fine and fixable by a few tweaks. The data arguing this point is huge and backed up by pretty much anybody.
What I don't understand is that you point out problems that we have under our current system and then say it is fine. The disadvantages claimed by you were created, or at least allowed to grow, under the system we currently have, so I don't get that argument at all.
Also, for the record, a consumption tax is NOT a REGRESSIVE tax. It would be a proportional tax if it didn't have the rider in it for lower incomes. Since it does account for lower incomes and provide for "free spending", it is, by economic definition, a progressive tax. By this I mean, the rich will pay more than the middle-class, the middle-class will pay more than the poor. Proportionately, the rich may pay a lower percentage of their income, but that fact does not come into play when defining a tax as "regressive", "Progressive" or "Proportional". (yes, non-economically speaking, it may be similar to the definition, but that definition is not accepted in economic circles).
/silently wishes onetime2 was around, sometimes his input is invaluable, but I understand the absence and wish him the best of luck