Score one for the voters

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Wow, you and I can agree on this.

Where we may or may not agree is what the tax code should look like, or what the proper function of a tax code should be.

IMHO, it is impossible for a government to enact a tax system that influences economic or social policy without eroding individual freedom. Nor, do I think such a system is desirable for a host of reasons. Therefore, the simpler the system, and the more such a system encourages the efficient private sector use of capital, the better. A tax system that encourages economic growth, and is designed to benefit from that growth, is ideal.

The possible answer may be a system that balances taxes on both wealth creation and consumption, yet discourages neither. There will always be some level of tax that discourages a particular activity. However, if the threshold it both reasonable and predictable over the long term, demand will typically drive the ship. Currently, federal taxes on capital formation and utilization or high, and minimal on consumption. May be an area of opportunity.

Just a thought....

You are absolutely right. We will likely not agree on the function of the tax code. Actually, we probably agree on the function of the tax code - to raise funds for the operation of government. What we are unlikely to agree on are what government operations should be (and on whether those who have benefitted the most from the social contract should contribute to its maintenance to a higher degree). I am also less inclined toward a federal consumption tax. To me, that encroaches on the area in which local governments raise a substantial portion of their revenue. (Look at me, advocating to protect local governments from the feds.) I do think that you and I would agree that it is more honest governance to directly fund those things that government seeks to encourage rather than to hide such incentives in the tax system.

Obviously if there were no tax at all, there would theoretically be more funds available for everything. Of course, we all know that government provides essential services, and without such services we would likely fall into anarchy. Therefore, everyone should somehow share in the cost of such services. I believe that services for the less fortunate, services which protect the citizens from unbridled capitalism, and funding to provide the highest level of education attainable should be included in the essential services. I also believe that any tax reform should maintain the Social Security system, and fund it more honestly than we have for the past several decades. Medicare would become redundant, however, if we were able to implement a European/Canadian style health system.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

I love you too, Blue.

Merry Christmas.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

You are absolutely right. We will likely not agree on the function of the tax code. Actually, we probably agree on the function of the tax code - to raise funds for the operation of government. What we are unlikely to agree on are what government operations should be (and on whether those who have benefitted the most from the social contract should contribute to its maintenance to a higher degree). I am also less inclined toward a federal consumption tax. To me, that encroaches on the area in which local governments raise a substantial portion of their revenue. (Look at me, advocating to protect local governments from the feds.) I do think that you and I would agree that it is more honest governance to directly fund those things that government seeks to encourage rather than to hide such incentives in the tax system.

Obviously if there were no tax at all, there would theoretically be more funds available for everything. Of course, we all know that government provides essential services, and without such services we would likely fall into anarchy. Therefore, everyone should somehow share in the cost of such services. I believe that services for the less fortunate, services which protect the citizens from unbridled capitalism, and funding to provide the highest level of education attainable should be included in the essential services. I also believe that any tax reform should maintain the Social Security system, and fund it more honestly than we have for the past several decades. Medicare would become redundant, however, if we were able to implement a European/Canadian style health system.

Regards,

D-Ray

And, there it is. Thank you.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by Charles

OMG Whell, you realize that part of your argument is based upon some simplistic notion which was written on a cocktail napkin?

Perhaps Wanniski should have simplified it further as it appears to be beyond the grasp of so many!!!

Chas

BTW, I've just laid in a new stock of smart ass pills, just in case anyone wonders.

Classic

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Charles

BTW, I've just laid in a new stock of smart ass pills, just in case anyone wonders.

I don't think the pills are needed. You show no smart ass deficiencies.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I don't think the pills are needed. You show no smart ass deficiencies.

That's like saying that Wilt Chamberlain needed ******.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by noonereal

If they wanted to both help people struggling and stimulate the economy they would have used this one trillion give away to send a check out to those on Social Security. This is the second year in a row their was no COLA and no one actually believes the price of goods the elderly and disabled use has not risen.

This was just a totally irresponsible act by hypocritical people.

I know for fact that Novartis did another 10% increase in the cost of prescriptions.

Who said modern medicine does not use leeches.

[merrylander]

The problem with dicking about with SS is that most 401ks are at best 201ks thanks to the market. Corporations have been walking away from pension agreements whenever they can (United Airlines). Wages have simply not kept pace with inflation, reducing people's ability to save.

I really love all this "corporate fear of uncertainty", how many here knew from year to year what their actual income tax would be? That did not stop us from buying new cars, or houses.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

That's like saying that Wilt Chamberlain needed ******.

Regards,

D-Ray

exactly

[Charles]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I know for fact that Novartis did another 10% increase in the cost of prescriptions.

Who said modern medicine does not use leeches.

You're not a bad smart ass yourself, for an old codger!!!

Let me take that back, your a wise ass as opposed to a smart ass!!!

Congratulations,

Chas