![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Not in any particular order:
...Because I believe that religion should be kept firmly and completely separate from government and all governmental decisions.
...Because I believe that Science, not Mythology, should be taught in Science classes.
...Because I believe that Sex Ed means educating children about all aspects of sexual behavior, how to behave responsibly in that arena, and how avoid consequences for such.
...Because I believe that if two adults love each other and wish to marry, they should be able to do so, regardless of their genders
...Because I believe that a woman should have the right to choose.
...Because I believe that the Federal Budget should be balanced, and, hey, while the Republicans talk about that all the time, the only time it's actually happened in my lifetime has been under a Democratic president.
...Because I believe that our tax structure should be more fairly balanced (frankly, I [EDITED VERSION] once found the idea of a flat tax regardless of income level to be very interesting, but now I'm not so certain...).
...Because I believe that it's best to be talking to your enemies, not simply threatening them.
...Because I believe that it's better to have a Supreme Court who will err on the side of granting too many freedoms to citizens rather than curtailing those we have.
...Because I believe that oil is finite while wind and sun are not, and that drilling for more oil (and thus handing more profits to the already obscene profits of the oil companies) isn't the answer.
...Because I believe that the science (oops, there's that word again) on Global Climate Change is rather compelling, and that we need to act quickly to offset its effects.
I'm sure I'll think of other reasons, but those will do for the moment. With a Republican administration, exactly none of the above will likely be true.
What are your reasons for voting the way you'll vote?
...Because I believe that religion should be kept firmly and completely separate from government and all governmental decisions.
...Because I believe that Science, not Mythology, should be taught in Science classes.
...Because I believe that Sex Ed means educating children about all aspects of sexual behavior, how to behave responsibly in that arena, and how avoid consequences for such.
...Because I believe that if two adults love each other and wish to marry, they should be able to do so, regardless of their genders
...Because I believe that a woman should have the right to choose.
...Because I believe that the Federal Budget should be balanced, and, hey, while the Republicans talk about that all the time, the only time it's actually happened in my lifetime has been under a Democratic president.
...Because I believe that our tax structure should be more fairly balanced (frankly, I [EDITED VERSION] once found the idea of a flat tax regardless of income level to be very interesting, but now I'm not so certain...).
...Because I believe that it's best to be talking to your enemies, not simply threatening them.
...Because I believe that it's better to have a Supreme Court who will err on the side of granting too many freedoms to citizens rather than curtailing those we have.
...Because I believe that oil is finite while wind and sun are not, and that drilling for more oil (and thus handing more profits to the already obscene profits of the oil companies) isn't the answer.
...Because I believe that the science (oops, there's that word again) on Global Climate Change is rather compelling, and that we need to act quickly to offset its effects.
I'm sure I'll think of other reasons, but those will do for the moment. With a Republican administration, exactly none of the above will likely be true.
What are your reasons for voting the way you'll vote?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I'd remind you that most flat tax proposals -- I'd say all, but there may be some floating about I've not seen -- contain *real* deductions from the Adjusted Gross Income, rather than the figleaf pretense of personal and other deductions we have now. I can't remember any of the specifics, and I'm way too tired to go surfing for them now, but they *greatly* exceed the current paltry $8,750/single. The point is to remove from the government's grasp not just what you (and your family, if any) need to survive, but to begin to thrive. (If the money never leaves your pocket, you won't need dependency-creating programs to put it back -- and there won't be a budget shortfall, because the government won't need to spend the money it now doesn't have to fund the programs you now don't need.)
Look at that $30k single again with a deduction of, say, $20k. Remember, though, that original $30k was itself post-deduction, so taxable income is now (at least) $18,750. 17% of that is (at least) $3,187.50. This makes after-tax income (at least) $35,562.50. The current ATI (see above) would be $34,651. Oops.
Of course, actual mileage will vary depending on where the non-taxable cutoffs are set and what the flat rate is. The best thing about a flat tax, though, is that it is *dis*-incentive free. Under a progressive tax, the marginal rate keeps going up on each additional dollar, making additional work marginally less and less attractive -- until, at some point, the Treasury gets no additional revenue because, well, most people *don't* like to work twice as hard for half as much. When the rate of return on your input never declines, though, you are far more likely to keep working for that next additional dollar -- and the Treasury will collect 17 cents every time you do.
This does not "transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor". By definition, the poor (those who have yet to "begin to thrive") will fall below the taxable threshold. And how's this for incentive: if you're receiving government "gift" (as opposed to earned) benefits and income you earn puts you over the threshold, you get to *keep* half the 83%! This retained fraction would decline over time, but should still clearly demonstrate the self-interest behind productive work and encourage the development of marketable skills.
Pad the threshold enough -- but just enough -- to make it obvious that those who do not "begin to thrive" at that level are not failing from lack of income, but from lack of competence to manage that income. Let a thousand charitable agencies bloom to offer assistance in learning those management skills. Let those agencies provide direct management if necessary as a last resort. Put an end to the myth that everyone who fails to thrive is being "kept down by the man!"
(I would make one deviation from the threshold rule, and I freely confess it may not be everyone's cuppa, but for what it's worth: Notwithstanding actual income, everyone who would otherwise be taxed will pay a $5 minimum tax. The government belongs to all the people, and *no* person should be under the misapprehension that there is a *right* [note that I did not say "need", which is why anyone is free to start a minimum tax charity fund] to do nothing but suck at its teat.)
In any case, I have a deep-seated aversion to the rationale for progressive taxation: You've got it, but my friends and I [think we] can put it to much better use, so we're going to take it, and if you object we'll knock you down and take more. In any other context, this would not be mistaken for anything but theft -- and the fact that you (not "you" you, of course) can convince a sufficient number of your fellow voters to be accessories before the fact does not make the pig any less ugly.
But, hey, I could be wrong...