"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

A simple tax like "The Fair Tax" that's being touted
would eliminate all the nonsense that goes on but it
would take control away from politicians, which is
why most politicians are against it.


What's fair for one is thought to be unfair to another. One proposal
is the "flat" tax.

I have a better proposal that everybody can get behind.

I propose a "flat-flat tax." Here's how it works. Assume the national
budget is $3 trillion and
that there are 300 million folks in the country. Each person, then, is
responsible for $10,000. That's their tax. Period. End of discussion.

There are problems associated with this plan, I admit. For example,
what about the poor person who doesn't HAVE $10,000?

Well, he could contribute one unit of blood platelets per month and
get a $1,000 credit toward the current tax year - sort of like
withholding.

But, you say, what about the poor single mother who has four kids
under the age of six? We can't drain FIVE units of blood from her each
month and certainly we aren't going to vampire the toddlers!
Absolutely correct. She's responsible for the taxes on her children,
but we can't take that much blood. It would be silly to even
contemplate such. What she CAN contribute is a kidney. A kidney is
worth about $100,000 on the open market. That, plus the platelets,
would mean her family's taxes would be paid for about three years.

Now I know what you're thinking. After three years, what? Do we take
her OTHER kidney? No, silly person... we insist she donate a cornea.
That should be good for another three or four years, by which time her
litter will be off having babies of their own and her tax liability
would fall back to the normal range. In the event the kids aren't out
having babies or selling crack, we then fall back to liver aliquots or
bone marrow.

This plan has several subordinate benefits. First it discourages
having children on the dole, cause momma has to have her teeth
extracted for transplantation. Secondly, it encourages marital
fidelity since a two-income family can better afford the taxes.

Absent approval of the foregoing, the "fairest" tax is the
"anti-progressive" tax. That is, rich people should pay a smaller
percentage of their income than the lower classes since they use fewer
government services. The well-to-do should pay SOMETHING - after all
they do benefit from the protection our military affords and they do
drive (or are chauffeured) on public roads. But they don't (generally)
use public hospitals, public schools, or get free treatment for VD.
They don't use public libraries or public parks (they have their own).
No, the rich don't use a proportionate amount of public services, so
they should pay only what their class consumes.

As an aside, I sent both these ideas to George McGovern back when he
was running for president. Just like all politicians, he didn't even
deign to respond. One day I'll tell you my plan for integrating the
schools. He evidently didn't like that plan either. Bad McGovern.

Flat tax is nonsense as described. Tax rates are fine - zero tax on the
first so much, 15% on the next so much, etc. Perhaps a credit (negative
tax) for real poor people. But certainly a good tax on "rich" people, or
blood sucking (fill in).

But no exceptions this or exceptions that. No accounting gimmicks
allowed.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid