If you remove the decision making from the individual because the individual isn't responsible enough, you can easily move it to a government official that isn't responsible.
In a democracy, there is at least a feedback loop around that
Not really.
The issue may never become a political issue. A lot of government spending never does. Special interest benefits might cost each voter or taxpayer a negligible amount of money. It might be rational not to fight it, or even to bother noticing it. Even if it becomes something of an issue it can easily be swamped by other issues. Even if it becomes a major issue and the voters actually do fairly directly decide with their votes, voters aren't perfect either. I'd prefer the freedom to make my own decisions on how to spend my money, then having everyone vote on it, even if it means I get to vote on how to spend their money.
but also the much more complex treatment of non-wage income which greatly facilitates tax avoidance endeavours on the part of the more affluent.
Low taxes on investment is a very good idea. It keeps the government from discouraging or distorting investment. I'd prefer less complex treatment, because that can itself distort investment, but low and simple would be good.
If you have ever lived in the 3'rd World, you will come to understand that societies lacking a robust middle class have some major problems, not the least of which is maintaining security for the well off.
I've never lived in the third world, but you don't have to live there to recognize that not having much of a middle class is a problem. Now explain how that is relevant to the US.
It concerns me greatly that the USA is drifting towards a significant class which pays no tax, and indeed sees the government as a source of wealth
That applies more to the poor than the rich. The rich as a class pay a lot of taxes. Tax cuts to the rich aren't a source of wealth for the rich. Taking less from someone isn't giving to them. Pork/special interest payments to the rich are a problem, but the problem should be addressed in terms of fighting against pork, and opposing unsound special interest benefits, not in terms of class warfare against the rich.
If the capital gains and dividends rates where completely zero (no complications, no holding periods etc.) then stock holders would still be paying taxes. They own the company, and their property pays taxes. It might make more sense to reduce or eliminate the corporate income tax, and then tax dividends and capital gains from stocks like any other income, but treatment of capital losses from stocks, and capital gains and losses from other property confuses the issue. Also its politically easier to cut taxes on stockholders (many of whom are middle class) than to cut taxes on corporations. Or we could just go to a sales tax and avoid most of the complexity.
I would much rather see the State concentrate on enhancing the economic ecosystem of the middle
I'd rather see the state concentrating on providing basic required services, and otherwise not trying to enhance any specific groups "economic ecosystem" at the expense of anyone else's. |
