"Do you support Bush's tax cuts?"
>>> Well Josh, as opposed to what? Doing nothing at all... or a really effective and comprehensive reform?
>>> IMO, the Bush 'tax cuts' are weak and flacid... but as a general rule I support lowering tax rates (ideally: to ONE rate, where ALL income no matter the source is taxed at the same rate).
>>> Bush seems to have done what most politicians do: 'eat his desert first and ignore his vegetables'.
>>> He lowered 'rates' but did not do ANY of the heavy lifting required to make it a sustainable change: ie, reduce spending, eliminate loopholes and 'special tax preference items', and cut out subsidies.
>>> Without the elimination of loopholes the nominal rates are a sham, because the effective rates paid by various groups are the reality that is nothing like the fantasy of the nominal rates. (In effect, the middle class payroll earner is now the 'beast of burden', with the very poor and the very rich paying far lower percentages of their income to the government).
>>> Without reform we also don't capture any of the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual compliance costs that businesses and individuals must pay to conform with the morass that is our complex tax code....
>>> And without reductions in wasteful spending, the 'tax cuts' are doubly a sham because the massive spending continues 'on the credit card'... and interest rates pile up on the unpaid debt.
>>> Yep: weak, flacid, ineffective, unfair, imbalanced, unproductive are just some of the terms I'd use to describe his over-all approach thus far.
>>> If countries from Russia to Croatia can slash loopholes, and implement flat taxes on income (varying from 13% to 19%), and see surges in tax revenue, and a major pick-up in compliance --- there should be no reason the US can't fix it's own mess. |
