visagrunt wrote:
SilverStar wrote:
visagrunt,
To answer your questions:
Cutting the size of government - I wasn't actually talking about privatizing national programs. What I was referring to, was cutting out the waste, unnecessary programs, and streamlining the government. What jobs that are lost in the process, would then be transferred to other industries in the private sector. I know this isn't as easy as it sounds, and can't happen overnight, especially with the economy being in the shape that it's in, but I think that it is necessary.
Name two.
Governments the world over have been looking for the easy cuts and were all made, long ago. There are no easy cuts left.
Quote:
About the taxes - As far as any flat tax goes, the aim is to streamline the code, and to prevent unfairness in the system. It's not really the government's job to manipulate the code and pick and choose who gets extra money, and who doesn't. The government should be neutral on these things. Like you said, with a national sales tax, the only things that should be exempted, are the basic necessities of life, nothing more. Adding tax rebates to people below the poverty line does help many people, but it also creates a lot of people that are entitled and dependent on the government, so I am not sure that's would be a good idea.
Also, with a flat tax, the burden on everybody is equal (everybody pays the same %), but the rich will still pay more than poor people, simply because they make more.
Flat taxes penalize the poor, because they have to spend a larger proportion of their income on necessities of life. I don't disagree with you on simplification, but flat tax is enormously unfair and wrongheaded.
First of all, I never said any cuts were easy, and there are plenty that won't be easy, but they will probably be necessary. A couple areas here in the US would be defense, the IRS (simplifying the tax code would probably do this anyways), and government pensions.
When you say that a flat tax is enormously unfair, you are only looking at it from a single perspective. I will ask you this. Is it fair for a single person making $30,000 to be taxed at 25%, while another person making the same amount, with two kids, doesn't pay anything? Why does the person with two kids deserve more money over a single person? What if that single person can't have kids, or has social problems that interfere with them finding a mate, to even have kids with? Is that fair to them? Who is the government to make that decision? Like I said, the government should remain neutral on these things.
Also, I think we both agreed that basic necessities would be tax exempted, so this would kind of void the argument about them spending more for these things.
You're confusing simplicity with fairness and real-world practicality. Having everyone pay the same "flat" percentage is just as arbitrary a standard as having everyone pay the same exact amount. The real issue is how do you structure the tax code to generate the needed revenue to support those government functions the nation agrees are vital.
10 Jul 2012, 11:04 pm
