Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
There is a difference between "can't" and "won't".
I work in steps. You seem to want to go from A to Z without what comes in between. For me, there are some basics we need to acknowledge before moving on. You won't even acknowledge the unfairness in our current tax code. You won't acknowledge that a flat consumption based tax system can be structured in different ways to accomplish different objectives. Again, generally speaking such a system could exempt people under whatever cut-off you want. For example you could cut it at $100,000 in income or consumption. The fundamental principle in my mind when thinking of fairness to poor or middle-class is to tax wealth, wealth based life-styles, exorbitance. What is the fundamental principle in your mind? Do you have one? Have you given it any thought?
|
Again, you cant or wont produce a "fair" tax proposal that works. I'm not surprised. I have never seen one that works, yet you want me to acknowledge that some unknown variation not yet proposed by an advocate of such a tax can be structured in a fair manner and be revenue neutral. Its not like its a new concept that just sprung to mind last week.
So I ask again...
No, I dont acknowledge the unfairness in a progressive tax system and neither has any US president, D or R. Neither does any industrialized country in the world.
I acknowledge that the current system needs to be reformed and simplified, but in a manner where those with more disposal income continue to pay a higher marginal rate than those living from paycheck to paycheck or the majority in-between, middle class families with two working spouses who enjoy some of life's amenities and hope to save for an emergency or their children's the future at the same time.
---------- Post added at 11:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------
As to the fundamental principle in my mind, this is one area where I agree with that iconic free marketeer, Adam Smith:
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
and that iconic Republican Teddy Roosevelt, who would probably be vilified as a socialist today:
"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."