True Conservative Tax Scheme

[dairygirl4u2c]

can some people who consider themselves conservatives tell me why they are not replying to this thread?
do you think you're not so so conservative as to require a flat fee? do you agree that the flat fee is more conservative, or do you think it's just anotehr form of conservatism? even if you are not hardcore conservative, do you support the flat fee, why and why not.

[Dismas]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1419741' date='Nov 15 2007, 10:22 AM']can some people who consider themselves conservatives tell me why they are not replying to this thread?
do you think you're not so so conservative as to require a flat fee? do you agree that the flat fee is more conservative, or do you think it's just anotehr form of conservatism? even if you are not hardcore conservative, do you support the flat fee, why and why not.[/quote]
A flat fee direct tax is superior to a linear income tax, which is in turn superior to a progressive income tax. The reasoning behind this is that more people would be directly affected by abusive spending by the government, while inferior tax structures hide the damage done to the public. This in turn would prevent abusive spending from occurring, as politicians prefer re-election to the alternative.

Of course, a direct tax is terribly unpopular because people want their wasteful government programs and not pay for them, which is why I am not very hopeful about the sustainability of the US in the next twenty years, or less.

Even so, any direct tax is simply too easy and too tempting to abuse and modify into a progressive income tax, and we are back to step one.

Reversing the spending cancer is the essential key. I'm afraid that its now terminal, short of direct Divine intervention.

[dairygirl4u2c]

interesting. cool. i didn't think anyone actually espouse the view. it does have merit though which you point out, ie hidden abuse with our current structure would be less rampant.

[Dismas]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1420055' date='Nov 15 2007, 09:07 PM']interesting. cool. i didn't think anyone actually espouse the view. it does have merit though which you point out, ie hidden abuse with our current structure would be less rampant.[/quote]

And I sincerely believe that the cost of hidden abuse causes far more damage to the poor of the nation and society than the same amount of abuse overtly shouldered by the poor. After all, the rich can simply raise prices to offset their costs.

[dairygirl4u2c]

interesting. good point.
i think some states need to have the freedom to try out various tax schemes. i'm sure there's studies on this in comparative countries.
cause i'm not sure what hte practical effects would be with each system. it's easy to theorize this way and that.

[Dismas]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1420504' date='Nov 16 2007, 03:59 PM']interesting. good point.
i think some states need to have the freedom to try out various tax schemes. i'm sure there's studies on this in comparative countries.
cause i'm not sure what hte practical effects would be with each system. it's easy to theorize this way and that.[/quote]

Well there are a large number of sound formulas used in economics that have been proven to work in real-world applications. Sadly, politicians in both major parties prefer demagoguery over logic, and short term gains over long term growth.

[dairygirl4u2c]

something tells me they aren't so sound.
i know i don't know for sure. but, i know i've seen formulas that are claimed to be sound. people think, "there's got to be an objective way to do this". yet, there's always claiming the opposite, that A's formula is whack etc. experts disagree all the time.
i wouldn't believe it till i've seen the methodolgy and its critique.
plus there's always risk built in and arbitrarieness of humans and politics. it's all hard to predict. the notorious rational person in economic theory is often wrote about to be not always an accurate indicator.

for example. it seems like it's true taxes would go down by a flat fee. the poorer would have ot pay more, and thereby they wouldnt want higher taxes. and it's true that a more jobs etc would be created and mroe economies when the rich pay less. but, after the economy settles after that change, there's always the poor at the end.
it could very well be the richer tend to think they want more government stuff and don't mind paying half their income, but the poorer do mind. it's a balance between how many of the richer would there be and how many of the poorer. the poorest might be screwed.

of course, your point is that they could be closer to the richer in that they want lowest taxes. and then there'd be very few poor who smell of elderberries it up. and many more people who get to pay less in taxes.

the opposite point would be that many would pay what they pay now. such that taxes would fall for the richer to the point that the median pays in percentage now. then, the poorer would only have their income increase because they are by definition below the median.
maybe more economies, but a worse condition for those who live now.

it's all very speculative.

Edited November 17, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c