Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!watmsg!sccowan
From: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Somebody inform me on the error of my ways...
Message-ID: <28410@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: 16 Aug 89 16:46:58 GMT
References: <401@fs1.ee.ubc.ca> <1713@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@watmath.waterloo.edu
Reply-To: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan)
Distribution: can
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 55

In article <1713@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> fare@enelg.UUCP (Michael David Farebrother) writes:
>
>	I just wonder if someone could shoot some holes in my theory.
>Apart from the fact that no-one would elect people planning to do this,
>what is wrong with throwing out the income tax act, and replacing it with
>a "30(?)% income tax" , no exclusions, no deductions, just report your
>income and pay 30% of it.  
>	Maybe the number is not enough, but what about the basic idea?
>
>							Mycroft Farebrother


The idea is called flat rate tax.  It is the true Zen of the tax
reform attempts carried out in the US and Canada.  Unfortunately,
these attempts were severely watered down:  instead of one tax
bracket, there are three; instead of no deductions and a low rate,
there are many deductions (fewer than before, but still many) and a
higher rate.  In short, they wimped out.

To actually put it into effect, there would still have to be some
fudging.  For instance, when you say 'income', you usually mean after
paying all of your costs.  What are allowable costs?  Employee
salaries definately, but what about sales trips?  Taking a client to
lunch?  Taking a client to a three-martini lunch?  Installing a pool
in your back yard so you can entertain clients at home?  Where to draw
the line.

A second issue is the poor, who in general need every cent they can
get.  This is relatively simple; just apply a flat-rate tax of (say)
20% to all income above (say) $20,000.  Thus, a person with only
$20,000 pays no tax, a person with $30,000 would pay $2000, and a
person with $60,000 would pay $8000.  Sounds pretty good to me.

It's detractors complain that it is 'regressive', which means that it
does not explicitly attack the rich in an attempt to get them to pay a
greater share.  I dispute this, because the rich don't pay a large
enough share now, due to the many loop holes that only work for the
rich.  If it was implemented as I (roughly) describe above, it would
proably bring in a bit more money, cost almost nothing to collect, and
probably get a much larger share from the rich.  Sounds good to me.

In summary, someone who proposed this was elected, his name was
Michael Wilson, but the special interest whiners got to him, and so he
was not allowed to actually do it.

Crispin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Login name:	sccowan			In real life: S. Crispin Cowan
Office:		DC3548	x3934		Home phone: 570-2517
Post Awful:	60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1
UUCP:		watmath!watmsg!sccowan
Domain:		sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu

"Everything to excess.  Moderation is for monks."
	-Lazarus Long