February 14, 2003 9:00 PM GMT
...something must also be done about wages, housing costs, health care costs, and corporate corruption.
Okay...on this we agree! ;D I'll come back to this in a sec.
I still think that a flat tax is the way to go; the richer will have to pay more because they earned more. Since this is collected at the top of one's paycheck, you don't even see it, much like taxes today. 'Nuff said.
I totally agree about wages, housing costs, and health care costs. These have gotten quite of of line...at $7/hour (starting or entry level position wage in the Evansville Tri-State area), and presuming a 40 hour work week...that's $14,560--before taxes. If poverty is anything less than $18,000, than you need to earn $8.66/hour at minimum just to get to the poverty threshold. And that does not cover your taxes at all. Presuming a basic loss rate of roughly 32%, you actually need to earn $26,500 to cover your tax burden as well...which is $12.75 an hour. Therefore, minimum wage is a joke.
Housing costs have been obscene for years. When a studio in my neighborhood goes for $300/month, and this isn't exactly the best section of town I'm talking here...you get the idea. And healthcare costs are becoming so bad that there are those who are opting to not have health insurance, because they cannot afford it. And Goddess help you if you're over 70.
Now...as for corporate corruption...
(Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!) http://www.egri.co.uk/smileys/devil-laugh.gif
This is what happens when you yank any sort of moral underpinning out of the fabric of a society and attempt to teach a "morally neutral" position in the schools. Many of these execs, especially those who went through school in the mid to late 1960's through most of the early 1980's, have what we like to call in my business "situational ethics." In other words: something is okay becuase (a)everyone is doing it (thus it must be right or okay), or (b) this is okay for me to do, but it is wrong for you to do (or vice-versa--it is an expediency thing).
Because there is no longer an agreed upon basis for morality, than it's okay for shady accounting practices, sloppy management techniques, lying to Congress (or pleading the 5th repeatedly), and easy-out bankruptcy. And, since the jail sentences are ridiculous (if there's one at all) and thus no real reason to stay in line...then if I can do something and get away with it, and if it boosts the bottom line...it must be okay or right for me to do so. In short...we've sold our soul to the Company Store.
I'm not advocating a return to the 1950's way of doing things. Not at all. Trannies were shunned, Epileptics were locked away in Insane Asylums, and things were repressed waaaay too much. So the question now is: "How do we fix this mess, Ollie?" ???
Luv 'n hugs,
Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"
February 13, 2003 12:06 AM GMT
I am in favor of a graduated income tax, but one that is simplified considerably and set up in a way that makes more sense.
The reason I believe this way is that I question the fairness of applying the same tax rate to someone who is barely getting by as to someone who is doing quite well. The tax rates should be set up as follows. There should be a three-tiered system: little or no tax for income up to a level considered to be poverty; a moderate rate for income above that and up to a level considered to be a comfortable living; and a somewhat higher, but still reasonable, rate on income considered to be luxury. The transition points should be indexed to inflation. There should be no deductions - the government has no business encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors by this method.
I have thought about this a great deal, and I have gone back and forth a little. In the end, I decided that I believe a graduated tax rate to be fair, provided the rates at all levels are reasonable, because those who have done well in our society can certainly afford to give a little more back. After all, they have taken care of their basic needs quite well, so they can afford to have a larger cut taken out of the income that exceeds what is needed to survive.
A sales tax in addition may be appropriate, especially if the lowest tax bracket is zero. Everyone, even those of small means, should be obligated to contribute at least a token amount. If the lowest tax bracket is not zero, perhaps 1% or so, then a sales tax might not be necessary.
State governments should collect taxes by the same method, adding a small amount onto the federal rate. Local governments could either be funded from the state or a sales tax.
Business taxes should follow a similar concept.
Personal income should be considered as income regardless of the source, whether from employment, dividends, interest, or capital gains. Capital gains could be spread out over the years which the asset was owned, so the income is not taxed at an excessive rate when the asset is sold.
So far, it looks like I am the liberal on this issue. There must be others out there. I would like to see other ideas.
Heather H.
February 14, 2003 6:11 PM GMT
I have to agree with many of Ricka's statements. The elimination of the middle class is destabilizing in any society. If tax policy can be used to counteract this trend, then it may be worth whatever perceived unfairness is present in the system. I have noted with alarm the gradual erosion of the middle class in the United States; the gap between rich and poor is widening and the middle class is increasingly squeezed. A progressive tax system will not necessarily stop this trend, but it will help to slow it. But something must also be done about wages, housing costs, health care costs, and corporate corruption.
Heather H.