Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Thorfinn · 04-17-2003, 05:46 PM

That was kind of the intent of the original income tax back in, what, 1917? IIRC, only the top 1% would have to pay taxes at all, and they had a rate of just 7%.

As always, though, if you take too many people out of the "paying" column, there is no incentive left to keep taxes down. Heck, if you dropped the income tax to only the top 10% of wage-earners, you could probably get half of the voters to agree that the rate should be 50% or 80%. They are not paying for it anyway.

Nah, I think it's high time for a Hammer and Champy-style Reorganization. Look at what functions we want gov't to do, figure out the most cost effective means of doing so without respect for the current piecemeal institutions. Then spread the damage out to everyone, maybe a consumption tax, so that everyone will have a reason to elect fiscally frugal representatives. If you want to have some special overpass constructed in your district, pass the hat. Don't force people half the country away to kick in for it.

Seriously, we spend 18% of our GDP on government, and we all know that is overkill. Heck, the budget now is 4x what it was during Reagans massive military buildup, and we don't face anyone nearly as formidable as the Soviets. Surely we could get by with the same size FedGov we had in the '80s. Which would mean only about 4% of our GDP, well within the bounds of a consumption tax. Heck, even if we started at 18% there would be broadbased pressure to reduce gov't spending, and you would still be paying less, and none of the April 15 (or quarterly) hassle.

So how about that? Eliminate all the current taxes and the vast amounts of paper and effort to comply and evade, and slap on a flat consumption tax. Become a tax haven where companies move to, rather than from, since the jobs are going to go where the companies do...

04-17-2003, 05:46 PM	#20
Thorfinn Zhentarim Guard Join Date: February 24, 2003 Location: Indiana Age: 62 Posts: 358	That was kind of the intent of the original income tax back in, what, 1917? IIRC, only the top 1% would have to pay taxes at all, and they had a rate of just 7%. As always, though, if you take too many people out of the "paying" column, there is no incentive left to keep taxes down. Heck, if you dropped the income tax to only the top 10% of wage-earners, you could probably get half of the voters to agree that the rate should be 50% or 80%. They are not paying for it anyway. Nah, I think it's high time for a Hammer and Champy-style Reorganization. Look at what functions we want gov't to do, figure out the most cost effective means of doing so without respect for the current piecemeal institutions. Then spread the damage out to everyone, maybe a consumption tax, so that everyone will have a reason to elect fiscally frugal representatives. If you want to have some special overpass constructed in your district, pass the hat. Don't force people half the country away to kick in for it. Seriously, we spend 18% of our GDP on government, and we all know that is overkill. Heck, the budget now is 4x what it was during Reagans massive military buildup, and we don't face anyone nearly as formidable as the Soviets. Surely we could get by with the same size FedGov we had in the '80s. Which would mean only about 4% of our GDP, well within the bounds of a consumption tax. Heck, even if we started at 18% there would be broadbased pressure to reduce gov't spending, and you would still be paying less, and none of the April 15 (or quarterly) hassle. So how about that? Eliminate all the current taxes and the vast amounts of paper and effort to comply and evade, and slap on a flat consumption tax. Become a tax haven where companies move to, rather than from, since the jobs are going to go where the companies do...