One of my beefs about Socialist ideology is that they always make the wealthy the fall guy.
If there is one question I always ask when any government proposes a tax hike, it is this.
Why do governments give themselves a raise after a poor fiscal performance ?
I've been through enough performance reviews in my life to know that my raise is proportional to my performance ...[text shortened]... best.
And get vilified for it.
Warren Buffett would tend to agree to a flat tax, I would think.
"Why do governments give themselves a raise after a poor fiscal performance ?"
"Why is this upside down with governments ?"
Why do you think it is connected in any way?
"And every time their feet are held to the fire, they make successful people in life the fall guy."
No they don't, on the contrary.
"A flat tax across the board would be a pretty simple solution, with some exemptions for those in lower income brackets."
Why, because it's easier to calculate?
"Quite simple really"
That's not the point of taxes. You know what is even more simple? Every american pays 1 dollar in taxes. That's it. What could be simpler? You build some roads with that.
"I ask anyone with moderate income.
How would you feel if your take home pay had a 70% deduction lopped off up front ?"
Don't know. Let me know if anyone, anywhere in the world proposes that.
The Danes have about 50% and they are the happiest people in the world. They get education, healthcare, social security, infrastructure in exchange. They don't have the fear of going bankrupt if they walk into a hospital.
"Instead they start with these ridiculous tax brackets and then introduce a series of tax deductions where everyone can reduce their tax load."
Why ridiculous. Again, do you get scared if too many numbers get thrown your way?
Tax brackets are based on the simple truth that a guy making 20k a year will hurt a lot more if you take 10% out of his paycheck than the guy making a million who pays 38%(if he doesn''t dodge them, ofc) or more in tax. Do a little math (scary) and see how much money does the first guy have left after tax and how much does the second?
When you draw the line at the end of the year and see how many bridges need fixing for which you as a country don't have the money, who will hurt more if you increase their taxes by 1%? The first guy might starve. The second guy might have to delay buying a second audi.
Also, please don't say trickle down economics, i would hate for us to stop being friends.
"Almost as if tax avoidance has become a sport."
There is a difference between stashing your millions in the caymans and getting a deduction to help you with keeping your 3 employee bakery floating.
"And as always, the smarter members of a society play that game the best.
And get vilified for it."
Nobody vilifies them. Not unless they are paying off politicians to actively screw the poor.
Stuff needs to get built so that everyone benefits, and you need to decide who you are going to ask for money. Is it the teacher? Or is it the billionaire? Also, the teacher is hurting, living paycheck to paycheck. He might even quit and you already have a teacher shortage. Will you cut his taxes? Or will you cut the billionaire's taxes even further?
I beg you again, please don't say trickle down economics. There are fewer and fewer people that i can have a conversation with on this forum, i would hate to have to add another ignorant to the ignorant pile.
"Warren Buffett would tend to agree to a flat tax, I would think."
Don't know on what you base this statement and it's irrelevant anyway. He is one man, he is free to share his opinion with anyone who would listen but he should get one vote. Under US law, his vote can potentially be quite a lot "fatter" than the vote of a nurse or a construction worker.