From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:45:07 GMT

In article <BxJzCF.I11@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.103204.3702@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>In article <markts.721352037@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>>>
>>> flat taxes for everyone. people and corporations.
>>> the 13% idea from jerry brown was the only
>>> good idea out of the democratic primaries.
>>>
>>> flat taxes will benefit the middle class.
>>
>>Do the rich actually use more services?
>>
>>I guess I'm in favor of progressive tax systems:
>>
>>- people who use progressively more services pay progressively more taxes!!!
               ^^^               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>  First of all, in a flat tax the rich WOULD pay more!    13% of a 
>  1,000,000 dollars is more than 13% of 100,000 dollars.

but SHOULD they pay more? Do they use more services?
>
>  Under a flat tax with no deductions the rich would likely pay
>  more since they now have the broadest disparity between the 
>  amount they theoretically could pay and what they actually
>  pay, due to those deductions.    As I said before, as a % 
>  of income, Ross Perot paid less than Bush, Bush paid less
>  than Clinton, and Clinton paid less than me!

But that assumes that Ross Perot _should_ pay more. 
Perhaps he should, simply by virtue of being rich, but
if you assume that taxes should be roughly on how much
a person uses up services, then the rich shouldn't necessarily pay
more.

A flat % tax is like saying: for you, this candy bar costs $0.50, but
for you sir, only $1.00, since you earn twice as much. Is that fair?
Same candy bar isn't it?

>
>  A flat tax/no deductions is inherently fairer and even if
>  it were "revenue neutral" it would save the government money
>  by being able to greatly reduce the size of the IRS due to
>  the vast simplification in the tax code a "no deductions" 
>  policy would have.  It would probably also produce greater
>  revenue due to better compliance due to the simplicity.
>  The biggest savings would be to the economy though via 
>  the vast savings resulting from reduced record-keeping
>  and accounting/tax-preparation costs.
>

this is true. Expediency isn't always the best motive for things.
Cut court costs by denying trials?  I think not!

OK, that's a drastic comparison, after all we're only talking taxes.

It all depends on what your concept of "fair" is. If you think the
rich should pay more taxes, but only get the same level of service,
that is one opinion (and is quite widely held).

>  Far better, if we insist on having government support for a
>  particular aspect of life, say R&D or child-care, to do it
>  with direct grants.
>
agreed. People do not want government dictating how they get their services.

>
>---peter
>
>
>


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: sci.econ