Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk
F<snip>
Why would you tax someone with an annual income of $10K or less, 5%,
and, someone with an annual income of $500K and above, 40%?
|
Ask Willie Sutton...
Anything less than a progressive tax gives disproportional advantage
to some (the wealthy) over others (the not-wealthy).
Taxes and/or fees are not just to pay for governmental services,
but can be used to achieve social goals as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk
*What is equitable ('fair') taxation? That is: if you had your say,
how would you structure American taxation (on the local, state, and/or federal levels)?
|
As benign dictator, I'd install at least one new form of government revenues at all levels of society...
Businesses now specify the qualifications they want/expect in prospective employees,
such as read/write English, high school, Bachelor's, Master's, Ph.D., M.D.,
licensed electrician, plumber, certified insulation installer,
or X years experience as a xxxxx, etc.
But the cost educating and training a child up to these various levels
is borne by the family, property taxes, and other resources
that have no connection to each particular business.
That is, I can set up a business that hires only licensed physicians and nurses,
and my business would only pay their salary and a (very limited) amount of payroll taxes.
My business income taxes are based on profits and loss, not on how much it cost to educate my employees.
So, my plan is an
annual fee based upon the cost of educating or qualifying
each of the employees that work in the business.
Such fees could be something like the gasoline or cigarette taxes,
and their use by governments could be restricted to support of the education system.
A secondary advantage might be that employers would set more realistic qualifications for their employees.