But somebody would still have to pay those taxes, and it's likely the middle and upper class.
Yes, that was part of my scenario. That's how the little guys reap the benefits without paying the price. Those that pay income taxes would make up for the lost revenue to the treasury, not the little guys, who don't pay income tax. The little guys get the benefit of lower prices without having to pay more in taxes.
So unless you're working a wealth transfer from middle/upper class to lower class I don't see the point.
I am not setting out with that purpose but that is the natural result. The whole left is outraged about the growing inequality and out for a wealth transfer so they/you should be happy with this. Plus lowering prices gets everybody buying out of pent-up demand so the pie is bigger.
In more collaborative and thoughtful times this should be able to get bipartisan support, although the inattentive public would probably react as you did and make it a hard sell. I'm not suggesting that this is practical politically, only that the idea is theoretically sound.
Plus, as you said, you would need an enforcement mechanism which isn't very libertarian.
There is nothing remotely un-libertarian about progress checks, sunset clauses, jawboning, shaming, or the invisible hand of the marketplace. A sound design would obviate a government enforcement program. The various players, each doing their thing, should produce the desired result naturally. If it needed a government enforcement program, I would not be advocating it. Not in my nature. <g>.
Frankly, in the real world, the only thing I would see happening is a giant stock market rally. And a much bigger deficit.
No deficit problem if the tax cuts and hikes were well timed, at least not after the transition. Meanwhile the stock market rally would mitigate the size of the tax hikes. |
