tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7362663422037727028.post6644066184040486273..comments2024-03-25T14:09:25.720-05:00Comments on The Old Jarhead: Tom Kratman Guest Post on Tax FraudsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7362663422037727028.post-57048274105047494012011-04-07T10:59:16.942-05:002011-04-07T10:59:16.942-05:00This is an interesting way to look at the current ...This is an interesting way to look at the current system of taxation. We already know this is the effect of “corporate” taxes. <br /><br />When we were younger, the talk was of “flat income taxes” where everyone pays the same percentage, but that leaves open the question of exactly what constitutes income—or what the meaning of “is” is.<br /><br />The last few years, I’ve been leaning in the direction of a universal national sales—NOT value added—tax combined with repeal of all national income taxes. It would be equally onerous to everyone and every corporation at all levels within the authority of the USA, so every purchaser would have a vested interest in keeping the rates low. It would eliminate the need for all sorts of beancounting and finding creative ways to shelter income. It would reduce the bookkeeping function of tax collecting by at least two-thirds. It would provide a continuous stream of government funds that exactly mirrors the economic health of the country in real time (screw around with the economy and the government gets less money to spend, surely a desirable result). And, the necessary percentage of the sales tax would be low since absolutely everyone without exception would pay it.<br /><br />As to arguments about “progressivity,” people who have more money spend more money and thus would pay more taxes; but, everyone has a stake in the game. “Regressive” is when supposedly equal citizens are treated differently.<br /><br />Ron PittengerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com