Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
From: eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke)
Newsgroups: net.taxes
Subject: flat vs. progressive taxes, a poll
Message-ID: <199@ihnet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 16-Feb-85 12:40:27 EST
Article-I.D.: ihnet.199
Posted: Sat Feb 16 12:40:27 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 04:49:32 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 75

< declare the pennies on your eye >

	I am a new subscriber to net.taxes, and I have read many articles
discussing the political issues surrounding taxation.
I don't know if these belong in net.taxes,
rather than net.politics, but here goes.
I would like to take a poll (mail only please), concerning
appropriate taxation programs.  Please choose
one of the following admittedly imperfect policies:
	A. Progressive tax, with many deductions.
	B. Progressive tax, with very few deductions.
	C. Flat tax, with many deductions.
	D. Flat tax, with almost no deductions.
I am talking about personal income tax here, not corporate taxes,
since I know almost nothing about them.
I realize many tax lawyers/accountants/supporters read this newsgroup,
so I expect an atypical bias towards A (it keeps said individuals happy).
I am interested in your selection only, not the reason (by mail).
Flame on the net if you wish.

	Since some have (or will) express their preference on the net,
I shall do so as well.
I like choice D, since it is the simplest.
Employers and financial institutions can withhold 20% automatically,
and almost nobody needs to fill out these damn forms.
We wouldn't have to employ all these damn IRS agents, and tax lawyers,
and H&R block people, saving considerable resources.
Cheating (and other tax shelters) become virtually non-existent,
saving the average taxpayer a lot of money.

I have heard several arguments against simple flat tax, and I shall
mention only a couple.
	1. It is unfair to the poor.
Wrong!!!  Life is unfair to the poor.  This problem should not be solved VIA
taxation.  If the existing programs are inadequate, the programs should be
changed.  If a new flat tax adds an unfair burden (20%) on the poor,
we should increase their welfare (whatever) by 20%.
Everyone is much better off, since the rich (paying very little tax)
have a much larger 20% than the poor.  It seems irrational to use taxes
to achieve economic redistribution.  
	2. We need tax laws to subsidize certain industries.
So why must we subsidize various industries.
If someone (say a small farmer, or an auto industry) cannot operate
at a prophet, why should I support them?  Why not let a few
companies go out of business, reduce the supply, raise the price,
and allow the remaining companies to earn a substantial unsubsidized prophet?
Of course the companies remaining will be most able to do this
(VIA competition).  
If a few things become more expensive, it is only because that is
what it really costs to produce them.  Please don't repeat argument 1.
If the poor suddenly can't afford food, it is better and cheaper
to subsidize the poor, than the entire farming industry.
Besides, the taxes saved (without various subsidies) would probably
allow the poor to buy the slightly more expensive food.
I am about to take advantage
(quite unfairly) of the interest deduction for my house.
I don't need it, and most home owners (middle class) are much better off
than the many renters, whose taxes must be higher because of my deduction.
The housing industry would get along almost as well (after a 4 year slump)
without this deduction.  And why should I encourage people to have
children in this incredibly overpopulated world?  
If i'd wanted to pay for a child, I would have had one myself.
I realize it is in my interest to educate and feed the children of the
poor, but why must I support everybodies child?
If there exists an essential industry, which cannot operate at a prophet,
there must be better ways to subsidize it (rather than tax deductions).
So far, I know of no such industry in the United States.

I better stop now.  Flame if you wish, but send me your selection [ABCD].
I want to know how intelligent, educated, informed taxpayers feel.
Will summarize of course.
-- 
	Having, is not so pleasing a thing after all, as wanting.
	It is not logical, but it is often true.
Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad