welsh
Junkmaster
I am going to have to address this quick- sorry, other things going on.
The law is not about punishing the rich, rather its about the maintaining peace and stability through a non-biased institution of dispute adjudication. That said, the reason why the decesed's desire to give a gift does not get the same rights as a gift does, is because the testamentary gift giver is either worm food or pushing up daisies. Is there a tax when you give a gift or even get a peanut butter sandwich, yes actually. You know that there are limits to which family members can give you a gift, for instance the tax-free $10,000 gift that family members can (perhaps used to- I have to check this) give to each other. But even in the peanut butter sandwich case one is not free of taxes. The money spent to buy peanut butter had to be earned, and when it was earned it was taxed- at least if the money was earned legally. Then there was a sales tax added on when the peanut butter was bought.
Why should transactions between the dead and the living receive the benefit of no-tax when so much of income is taxed through other ways? You received something for nothing but lineage. The dead have no interests anymore and the living have received a unique benefit, income, that others don’t enjoy. We have an exchange of value that was neither worked for, or the product of the living’s efforts.
I disagree with what you are saying about George Bush and I think that runs against what most commentators have said. The desire to end estate taxes, the end of the tax on corporations and dividends, and the tax policy all benefit the rich and not the poor and middle class.
That the law should be fair across economic strata is part of the tradition of the US. But I doubt a flat tax would achieve the ends you wish. Tax law is one of the most debated and changed legal regimes in the US, reflecting the ability of the state as an economic actor to regulate our economy. While I think the principle of government withdrawing from that policy area is potentially dangerous in theory, I don't think its realistic in practice.
What can tax can destroy, and I doubt Congress, once making a flat tax, would be able to keep its hand off. Again, you would have exemptions and benefits giving to those interests that Congress feels deserving, and I would bet that big financial interests and the rich, because of their superior financial ability, would more likely campaign for tax relief than the poor and middle class which lack both the time and money to campaign effectively.
One cannot think of a policy, once made, as set in stone, but rather you have to think of the likely paths created by that policy over time. Merely creating a tax structure around a flat tax won't work in the medium or long term. If you want to protect the interests of the poor and middle class voters than you have to elect candidates that will favor those interests. That’s a question of on-going political engagement.
I would also disagree with what you are saying about bureaucracy. Over the past 10 years or so the government has done a good job shrinking bureaucracy even while adjusting to issues of globalization and expansion of the economic sector. As discussed earlier, where one finds successful economies under globalization one also finds growing and effective bureaucratic apparatus.
Currently the bureaucracy in this country is suffering big time because most of the senior experienced people are moving out and there is a shortage of new people and medium level folks due to consistent budget cuts. The question of bureaucracy is not size but effectiveness, and right now our bureaucracy is pretty damn thin.
While I think that you are right, a bloated and ineffective bureaucracy is itself a tax on the state and economy, I don’t think that’s our current bureaucracy fits that bill and in fact, might be underfunded. In other words, the problem is not too much bureaucracy but too little. This argument that “the government sucks up your tax dollars and wastes it” has been kicked around for 20 years now and government has been responsive. But I think the problem now is one of institution creation and reconstruction and not destruction through greater tax cuts. Besides, the US already has some of the lowest taxes in the world.
whoops, longer than I thought.
The law is not about punishing the rich, rather its about the maintaining peace and stability through a non-biased institution of dispute adjudication. That said, the reason why the decesed's desire to give a gift does not get the same rights as a gift does, is because the testamentary gift giver is either worm food or pushing up daisies. Is there a tax when you give a gift or even get a peanut butter sandwich, yes actually. You know that there are limits to which family members can give you a gift, for instance the tax-free $10,000 gift that family members can (perhaps used to- I have to check this) give to each other. But even in the peanut butter sandwich case one is not free of taxes. The money spent to buy peanut butter had to be earned, and when it was earned it was taxed- at least if the money was earned legally. Then there was a sales tax added on when the peanut butter was bought.
Why should transactions between the dead and the living receive the benefit of no-tax when so much of income is taxed through other ways? You received something for nothing but lineage. The dead have no interests anymore and the living have received a unique benefit, income, that others don’t enjoy. We have an exchange of value that was neither worked for, or the product of the living’s efforts.
I disagree with what you are saying about George Bush and I think that runs against what most commentators have said. The desire to end estate taxes, the end of the tax on corporations and dividends, and the tax policy all benefit the rich and not the poor and middle class.
That the law should be fair across economic strata is part of the tradition of the US. But I doubt a flat tax would achieve the ends you wish. Tax law is one of the most debated and changed legal regimes in the US, reflecting the ability of the state as an economic actor to regulate our economy. While I think the principle of government withdrawing from that policy area is potentially dangerous in theory, I don't think its realistic in practice.
What can tax can destroy, and I doubt Congress, once making a flat tax, would be able to keep its hand off. Again, you would have exemptions and benefits giving to those interests that Congress feels deserving, and I would bet that big financial interests and the rich, because of their superior financial ability, would more likely campaign for tax relief than the poor and middle class which lack both the time and money to campaign effectively.
One cannot think of a policy, once made, as set in stone, but rather you have to think of the likely paths created by that policy over time. Merely creating a tax structure around a flat tax won't work in the medium or long term. If you want to protect the interests of the poor and middle class voters than you have to elect candidates that will favor those interests. That’s a question of on-going political engagement.
I would also disagree with what you are saying about bureaucracy. Over the past 10 years or so the government has done a good job shrinking bureaucracy even while adjusting to issues of globalization and expansion of the economic sector. As discussed earlier, where one finds successful economies under globalization one also finds growing and effective bureaucratic apparatus.
Currently the bureaucracy in this country is suffering big time because most of the senior experienced people are moving out and there is a shortage of new people and medium level folks due to consistent budget cuts. The question of bureaucracy is not size but effectiveness, and right now our bureaucracy is pretty damn thin.
While I think that you are right, a bloated and ineffective bureaucracy is itself a tax on the state and economy, I don’t think that’s our current bureaucracy fits that bill and in fact, might be underfunded. In other words, the problem is not too much bureaucracy but too little. This argument that “the government sucks up your tax dollars and wastes it” has been kicked around for 20 years now and government has been responsive. But I think the problem now is one of institution creation and reconstruction and not destruction through greater tax cuts. Besides, the US already has some of the lowest taxes in the world.
whoops, longer than I thought.
