Tweet
Oh but that would fall into the catch-all "impossibly difficult which raises enforcement issues" category Kuci, as if the application and enforcement of the 6,000-page income tax code is somehow any less convoluted.
-
Not really. You still have a huge middle class tax hike. However way you do it, you shift the tax burden downwards.VAT with an EITC. Solves your problem perfectly, Ramo.
n.b. By impossibly difficult to enforce measures, I mean making a VAT/sales tax progressive."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
-
Not at the high end. And significantly less progressive than the status quo, however way you cut it."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Again, I defined impossibly difficult to enforce in the initial post:
Unless you make the code impossibly difficult (which raises enforcement issues, among other things), a national sales tax amounts to sharply shifting the tax burden from the rich to those with lower incomes (at the very least, to the middle class)"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Do you mean to tell me an EITC for 100% of the average VAT contribution of any household earning under $80K would be less progressive than the system now, where said household would pay ~$9K? Last time I checked, 0.0 =/= 9.
I'm not actually suggesting an EITC that extreme, just illustrating how ridiculous your "any way you slice it" categorical mentality sounds. Obviously anyone holding the drafter's pen could make it every bit as progressive as he/she damn well pleases.Comment
-
Look at my initial post - the one you quoted. My caveat is that you have to dismantle the federal gov't for that to work. There's absolutely no way that kind of tax regime which exempts the vast majority of people can approach the revenues needed. And you still shift the tax burden from the very rich to the rich/upper middle class (i.e. from higher to lower incomes)."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Basically you have three choices:
1. Eliminating the modern federal gov't
2. Making the tax code impossibly difficult
3. Drastically increasing the tax burden on the middle class (and possibly the poor)"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
And you can look at my caveat that I'm not actually suggesting a 100% exemption for the "vast majority." There would of course be gradations, e.g. 100% EITC coverage of the average VAT contribution by someone making between X and Y, 95% for someone making between Y and Z, and so on.Originally posted by Ramo
Look at my initial post - the one you quoted. My caveat is that you have to dismantle the federal gov't for that to work. There's absolutely no way that kind of tax regime which exempts the vast majority of people can approach the revenues needed. And you still shift the tax burden from the very rich to the rich/upper middle class (i.e. from higher to lower incomes).
The actual VAT percentage and EITC gradation structure would only need to be designed in such a way as to garner revenue roughly equal to the current budget, and could be annually revised if necessary.Comment
-
What do you propose exactly? My entire point is that it's completely impractical, so it doesn't help when you write X and Y as if they meant something."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I used X and Y only to describe how the gradation structure would work; it's not like I have access to an army of analysts able to spend six months determining the exact brackets and percentages needed to match the actual budget. The basic idea is very simple:Originally posted by Ramo
What do you propose exactly? My entire point is that it's completely impractical, so it doesn't help when you write X and Y as if they meant something.Attached FilesComment
-
-
You just need a progressive EITC (e.g. some % under Xk, a lesser percent under Yk, etc.). It works out just fine.Originally posted by Ramo
Not really. You still have a huge middle class tax hike. However way you do it, you shift the tax burden downwards.
n.b. By impossibly difficult to enforce measures, I mean making a VAT/sales tax progressive.
edit: Darius posted exactly what I was thinking ofComment
-
I completely understand what you're saying, thanks. What I'm telling you is that it's totally impractical. Propose a regime. I'll try to explain how it is either a.) inadequate to fund the modern federal gov't, b.) ridiculously complicated (as compared to a straight-forward progressive income tax), or c.) going to shift the tax burden sharply downwards.
I used X and Y only to describe how the gradation structure would work; it's not like I have access to an army of analysts able to spend six months determining the exact brackets and percentages needed to match the actual budget. The basic idea is very simple:
On a completely unrelated note, VA Senate Dems FTW
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
I already did propose a regime. If you're going to keep BAMing that something as utterly straightforward as "X% EITC for $Y annual income" is somehow "ridiculously complex" without telling me why, this is clearly a waste of time.Comment
-
No you didn't. Neither X nor Y belong to the set of positive real numbers. You insist that your system is practical, but won't even bother to provide a rough sketch of it. I'm not the one BAMing. ****, I'm even offering to do the hard work."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
Comment