The fact that you propose a new tax
Eliminating special targeted tax breaks is not proposing a new tax. The tax exists already. Its called the income tax. Then the government says you can have some of it back if you do this, and some back if you do that. I say get rid of all those special breaks and lower the tax rates.
Most people agree that the current rate of growth of medical costs is even more unsustainable than the Social Security and Medicare systems cost growth.
All the more reason not to push the prices up even more by effectively subsidizing health care.
Socialists want the government to take it over and fail for a while before a sustainable solution is sought.
True, but not very relevant to my idea. Eliminating a special targeted tax break or a subsidy is not having the government take control, its reducing the amount of government control.
I've quoted part of a CATO article below. It accurately describes my opinion of the issue, even if its more general (its not specifically about closing this targeted tax break).
----
"Nevertheless, targeted tax breaks are certainly bad policy. Because they provide special treatment for politically powerful industries, such tax breaks run counter to the notion that all taxpayers should be treated the same.
Furthermore, targeted tax breaks create distortions in the workings of the economy. Government steps in and creates an uneven playing field by granting tax breaks to particular industries. As a result, our economy's resources do not go toward their most efficient use, which makes it more difficult for America's businesses to be successful.
While targeted tax breaks are not corporate welfare, they are bad policy and should be eliminated. However, such tax reform should only be done on a revenue-neutral basis, or preferably as a net tax cut. That is, since closing loopholes broadens the tax base, tax rates must be correspondingly reduced to avoid an overall increase in taxes. "
cato.org |
