I agree with you. In my perfect world, healthcare, retirement, & education (including public universities) would also be gov funded. Obviously a lot would have to change with the tax code & everything else to get there, though.
NOT unity horse
Well yeah, this is where the dirty liberal side of me comes in. But I can definitely see a lot of positives to the conservative/libertarian fiscal policy and if they included better safety nets I could definitely get on board. So I'm part socialist, part libertarian. Makes sense, right? hehe
Using this reasoning though, it could apply to many different deductions and credits. Where do you we draw the line? The "no deductions" plan would be a total falacy again.
It costs me more to own my home than rent one. Mortgage interest deduction helps defray that cost. For a lot of people, this argument is just as valid as the child-related deductions and credits.
Everyone could have their own opinion about where to draw the line, but for me the line is drawn when we're talking about a human being. You can choose to own a home or rent. You cannot choose whether or not to feed and take care of your kids. For me this deduction is for that extra expense required to raise a human being.
Now I'm not saying the government can't have programs to incentivize different behaviors (cash for clunkers as an example). I just think they should not be tied to the tax code. Treat them as a separate program which people can apply for at that time. If you want to give people an incentive to install solar panels to their roof? Have a program that people can apply for and get a rebate. It is unncessary to tie everything to the tax code.
EmilyJ, how does a flat tax eliminate global taxation? Why couldn't this rate/plan follow expats?
Although to give them no exemption/ deduction would be grossly unfair, since they aren't using US government services as much.
Global taxation doesn't have to do with expats - it has to do with doing business in the global economy. This is where my math knowledge fails me, but it deals with how taxes are handled on goods that are exported/imported to/from other countries - the tax component on goods like payroll taxes and corporate taxes are not removed when exported, but the taxes on goods like sales tax and value added tax can be removed from exports and added to imports.
Using this reasoning though, it could apply to many different deductions and credits. Where do you we draw the line? The "no deductions" plan would be a total falacy again.
It costs me more to own my home than rent one. Mortgage interest deduction helps defray that cost. For a lot of people, this argument is just as valid as the child-related deductions and credits.
People need housing, but there is no reason they need to own their housing. They also don't need to spend more on owning a home because of an expectation of a deduction. Owning a home doesn't have to cost more than renting. It depends on down payment and how much someone is being aspirational. Rents go up every year for the most part, a fixed mortgage can help with budgeting long term.
Society needs some sort of population growth and there is no way to have kids cost less than no kids. That is where I would draw the distinction.
I think there is room for disagreement on this point. As a nation, we are not in danger of underpopulation at this time. Thus, IMO, having a child remains a choice that does not need to be incentivized. People will continue to procreate even without a tax incentive to do so.
Our current tax code is a real mess and my mind goes crazy at trying to figure out the right answer. This post might be all over the place because of that.
Our current tax code is set up to incentivize certain behaviors like others mentioned. What about things like charitable donations and adoption tax credit? Those things affect other humans and although people should be able to do those things without being incentivized, the tax deduction or credit is a huge help in driving some people to donate or adopt who may not have been able to before the tax incentive.
Also taxing investments or small business owners at the same rate as any other income/labor type of job doesn't make sense to me. Investing and small businesses take on a lot more risk and I appreciate the tax code creating the incentive for people to take on the additional risk. At a standard job there isn't much risk in getting your income.
As for the super wealthy? I don't know what to do about them. I do know that making $150K/yr is not the same everywhere, and it is also vastly different than say $350K/yr, or $600K/yr. Just like $1million/yr is different than $10million/yr. If anything I think we need more 'brackets', so I guess maybe I don't support a flat tax. I wonder if you could have a flat tax and then make up the difference based on sales/consumer tax. The more you consume, the more taxes you pay. But then maybe that will drive consumption in the wrong direction which is huge component of our economy.
Personally I'm probably more of a socialist on some of these things because I grew up below the poverty line and now I am in the upper middle class. I am completely comfortable having the very poor or lower middle class pay no/less taxes than me if it means they can feed their family, have utilities/home, and maybe even not live paycheck to paycheck. The reality is I have all my necessities covered so I am capable of paying more into the system. It benefits all of society for me to do so.