I cannot discern anything contrary to what I have said in the discussion of the Framers that you offer, with the one exception that Jefferson respects public opinion more than I do, so I am having difficulty seeing your point. Government listens, but sometimes must lead; it is better that the electorate be informed; public opinion can be tyrannical towards minorities.
You say: "I have to disagree that we have representative government because of the fickle nature of public opinion". I do not think you quite grasp what I am getting at. Just as any larger deliberative body delegates work to committees, because there is neither time nor expertise for the body to act as a committee of the whole on all questions, so the People delegate deliberation on public questions to a representative legislature. It has less to do with fickleness, which is merely a symptom, than it has to do with the shallowness of opinion on most issues, especially those that may be complex or technical. Modern technology might make it easier to keep track of public opinion, and to influence it, but it cannot make it more valuable than it inherently is......
If it were the case that the bottom of the income curve were to pay so much more that it markedly altered their purchasing power, you might be onto something. I see no reason for that to be so, however. Most flat tax proposals, trading off remaining deductions, with a few exceptions, for rate reduction, allow those currently exempt to stay off the rolls, only raise the rates slightly on the middle, and are ultimately revenue neutral. Besides, adequate revenue is always affected by other variables, like spending and economic growth. If we continue with surpluses, it will make a flat tax, or at least further simplification, even easier.
The main thing is that taxes raise the costs on goods and services. In the instance of the income tax, they increase the cost of hiring and retention, and, through graduation, increase the cost of productivity. Thus, as a matter of elementary economics, the higher the income tax, the lower employment, all things being equal, and the lower productivity to the extent that it is tied to worker performance (productivity gained through capital investment is a different kettle of fish).
There is not a magic number, but there is the advisability of having both base and marginal rates be as low as possible, and since base rates were historically not so bad, the primary concern was with marginal rates.
As for deductibility of dependents, well, quite clearly there is a bias in our tax code for the formation of families. Even with that, we are barely at replacement level, and many European countries are already experiencing a birth dearth. I think it can be justified....
As regards the consumer sovereignty issue, I do not think we are discussing mere culture differences. I know for a fact that Paris deliberately limits the ability of "hypermarkets" to operate in order to favor small shopkeepers, for example, which penalizes the consumer, by keeping prices high and limiting selection. Having taken a budget package, I experienced the Parisian notion of a three star hotel, which was actually less comfortable than a Days Inn (tiny beds, small tv, no chairs or divan, no normal shower). In the museums, the standards of climate control that I am used to in the States were not observed, and I actually saw a piece of a 13th century crucifix that had been glued on a canvas begin to come off, in the Louvre. Well, I will not belabor the matter, but it made an impression on me.... |
