It's a one-sided article (in favor), but I haven't seen as conise a summary about what it does yet.
I haven't formed an opinion on it yet. I like that it preserves vertical progressiveness and enhances horizontal equity, because I think too often structural aspects of the tax code are used to obscure fairness attributes of the tax code and vice versa - by both parties.
This commission looked at only one aspect of the income tax: structure. Once we have a structure that's potentially comprehendable, we can actually debate issues such as progressivity.
Too often the debate focuses on one individual tax or deduction. Here's a chance to focus on the whole darn thing.
I'm skeptical it will go far, but I hope it at least leads to meaningful debate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I slept through economics. And then crammed the night before the final. And still got a decent grade (86%). But I still don't understand it. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The whole idea behind tax reform is getting the government out of the business of encouraging or discouraging any activity, however worthwhile.
I don't know if that's true.
quote:Just as important, however, is "horizontal" equity: Does the code impose roughly similar tax burdens on people with similar incomes? In this respect, the current system is far from ideal. Because of all the deductions and credits in the current code, taxes paid have as much to do with how you earn, spend and invest your money as with how much you earn.
And I think that distinctions concerning how you earn your money should be made. Overall, the plan sounds like it would bring us back to basics, but I've always thought that there was a reason that we rejiggered the basics, namely, to give incentives for certain type of work, make distinctions, and encourage fledging businesses.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
