Alan: Over time, America's lowest wage earners are paying an ever larger percentage of the federal tax burden.
This mounting burden is diametrically opposed to the original intention of the federal income tax.
Here is the forgotten history of Federal Income Tax design:
1910 Income Tax Promised To Never Shift Burden From Richest 1 - 4%
Grasp your ankles, spread your cheeks and pass the K-Y to the fat cat standing behind you.
Republicans wrongly call for flattening taxes. "While tax cuts help growth in the short-run by putting money in people's pockets, they only help in the long-run if they're paid for. If they're not, then bigger deficits will mean higher interest rates that will slow the economy down even more than the tax cuts sped it up. And since it's hard to cut hundreds of billions of dollars of spending—which is how big a budget hole a flat tax would create—they want to cut tax spending instead. Those are the loopholes, like the home mortgage interest deduction, that not only make the tax code so convoluted, but also cost a lot of money. ... If you have a lower rate on more of your income, then the effective rate you're paying on all of your income is about the same. In other words, your incentives don't change much if the tax you owe doesn't change much, even if your tax rate does. So it's no surprise that the 1986 tax reform, which has achieved cult-like status inside the Beltway, didn't really charge, let alone supercharge, growth ... If tax cuts for the rich were going to save the economy, they'd have saved the economy." The Washington Post
No comments:
Post a Comment