04-07-2003, 06:16 PM
Yeah, I agree they are controversial and not so simple. My preference for zero business tax is due to what you alluded, that businesses are just moving to avoid the taxes, or influencing government to create loopholes.
Consumption taxes do burden the consumer, but businesses would be the largest consumers of goods. I like the idea of building efficiency and conservatism into the economy. I am tired of a world that produces "crap" consumables and encourages people to mortgage their futures for temporal luxury today. I see a consumption tax as a way to encourage environmentalism, and savings, while not punishing a person for increasing their income. One way to eliminate the problem of the "poor" being burdened would be to have some sort of exemption or rebate based on income.
Consumption taxes do burden the consumer, but businesses would be the largest consumers of goods. I like the idea of building efficiency and conservatism into the economy. I am tired of a world that produces "crap" consumables and encourages people to mortgage their futures for temporal luxury today. I see a consumption tax as a way to encourage environmentalism, and savings, while not punishing a person for increasing their income. One way to eliminate the problem of the "poor" being burdened would be to have some sort of exemption or rebate based on income.
Quote:Another problem is the establishment and reinforcement of a wealth based aristocracy. Those with higher income would have more disposable income to invest, which in turn would raise their income.Maybe here is where the "death tax" comes into play. To me, it makes some sense to allow property in the form of a family business or a family farm to pass from one generation to the next, but when the property is cash, or public securities, then I think it should be subject to the highest of taxes. I'm much more Jeffersonian, in that I think each American should be allowed to be self made. Then again, a fool and his money are soon parted, so many foolish sons of the rich would soon find themselves poor anyway. Currently, the American wealth based aristocracy has found a way to maintain their privileged position, while mostly preventing any emergence of a noveau riche. Another way to look at that "problem" would be, "oh well". It could be that the more people who are wealthy would tend to create more opportunity and wealth for the middle, and the poor ultimately raising the standard for all. It is conceivable (but not likely) to have a society without the poor. But the fewer the better, and as a whole, a civilized society will need to accomodate some non-productive persons who are sustained by the wealth of the masses.