|
Edited on Thu Apr-13-06 09:33 PM by JackRiddler
Starting at $200,000. Every income earner should have one, single $200,000 exemption and half of anything above that goes to the state, no loopholes.
Income tax contrary to the mythology is inherently regressive. How can you justify taking any percentage from people earning 30,000, or even 60,000? 10 percent of 30,000 is a much greater burden to that person than 30 percent of 100,000!
Now 200,000 is a sufficient amount to live well, hold a house, pay for college bills, etc., and to act as an incentive to work hard.
Up until there, you can argue that it's your work, talent and hard-acquired expertise that earns the money, as opposed to the organization of social forces. So why not keep it?
So what should replace all the lost revenue?
Well, first off, the worst scam in history is war. Shut down all of these bases around the universe which are NOT protecting Americans at all, but performing the opposite function of entangling them in unjustifiable foreign adventures and earning them the hatred of the world. Cut the Pentagon to what might actually be needed to defend the US (about one-quarter of what currently exists). This should be effected through a mutual conventional disarment initiative started by the strongest nation, the US.
But I lied. The biggest scam in history is actually central banking. Stop using interest-bearing credit to cover the federal deficit. As Edison said, it's ridiculous that a government is considered reliable enough to issue an interest-bearing IOU, but it is not supposed to be responsible enough to issue the currency outright (at a far lower obligation!). This is a scam for charging interest that accrues mostly to private banks, when in fact the government could be issuing the currency to cover infrastructural costs directly (i.e., instead of bonds). (This should however be limited to infrastructural items with a tendency to actually stimulate economy.)
That would slice the two largest expenses in the federal budget: war and interest.
Beyond that, as Paul Hawken advocates, gather revenue institute a system of charges on production, resource use and energy. The tax system should be used to create the incentive for ecological responsibility and energy efficiency, and to end the "externalization" effect whereby real costs to health and environment are simply dumped on the community, while profit is kept privatized.
In the end, your average person may end up paying the same in taxes, but they will be doing so through price, as opposed to income. (There should be exemptions for food, health costs, and other necessities.)
A tax on wealth might also be considered, as opposed to income. One percent every few years on whateveryou own above a certain threshold (or beyond the main house).
|