If all your arguing is that "the rich" get away with paying a lower income tax rate because of deductions, and therefore we should remove those deductions, fine. I think we would solve a lot more of our problems with a simpler, flatter tax code than what we have right now. But you can't claim that having one person taxed at 20% and another taxed at 25% is fair.
And a tax break isn't a subsidy. A subsidy is the government paying out money to someone that it got from somewhere else (other people's taxes or debt). A tax break is just letting people keep more of the income that they earned.
Out here in Colorado, we mountain folk have a similar law on the books, called the tax payer bill of rights (TABOR). It requires any tax increase to be approved by voter referendum.
The practical result of this law is that the legislature has to operate within a limited fiscal environment. This means keeping spending in line and focusing the state budget on priorities. It also means that the people have to agree that taxes need to be raised.
Oh, and can someone explain to me how paying the same percent tax from one's income as another person someone means that you are paying insufficient taxes?
When did this crazy change in thinking take place? Surely, everyone has always loved giving their money to the government, especially when they disagree. It's not like individuals regularly pursue their self interest or anything...
Isn't the real problem that a State Senator wants to take away the right of municipal governments to decide for themselves if they want to get into the broadband business or not? Surely the residents of a particular locality should be the ones deciding this on a case by case basis, not someone in the state senate.
Slashdot Mirror
If all your arguing is that "the rich" get away with paying a lower income tax rate because of deductions, and therefore we should remove those deductions, fine. I think we would solve a lot more of our problems with a simpler, flatter tax code than what we have right now. But you can't claim that having one person taxed at 20% and another taxed at 25% is fair. And a tax break isn't a subsidy. A subsidy is the government paying out money to someone that it got from somewhere else (other people's taxes or debt). A tax break is just letting people keep more of the income that they earned.
Out here in Colorado, we mountain folk have a similar law on the books, called the tax payer bill of rights (TABOR). It requires any tax increase to be approved by voter referendum. The practical result of this law is that the legislature has to operate within a limited fiscal environment. This means keeping spending in line and focusing the state budget on priorities. It also means that the people have to agree that taxes need to be raised. Oh, and can someone explain to me how paying the same percent tax from one's income as another person someone means that you are paying insufficient taxes?
When did this crazy change in thinking take place? Surely, everyone has always loved giving their money to the government, especially when they disagree. It's not like individuals regularly pursue their self interest or anything...
Isn't the real problem that a State Senator wants to take away the right of municipal governments to decide for themselves if they want to get into the broadband business or not? Surely the residents of a particular locality should be the ones deciding this on a case by case basis, not someone in the state senate.