Why are they called the Bush Tax Cuts rather than simply, current Tax Rates? The rhetoric is all over the place. Taxes on the rich, Tax breaks for the poor; -or the middle class. etc. etc.
Taxes are nothing more than a way for a government to collect money to pay for themselves and the services they elect to provide to, and for, the public. The method of collection varies from direct: i.e. tolls for the roadway, or Park entrance fees for the Parks; to more general, such as Income Tax or Corporation Tax, which go to all sorts of expenses.
In between, there are more than a myriad of taxes and another myriad of rationale-like names for the their existence. Meals Tax, Sales Tax, Excise Tax, Inventory Tax, Inheritence Tax, Cigarette Tax, et al. There's a Telephone Pole Tax, and in New Hampshire they tried to tax the golf holes at the Portsmouth Country Club. It failed, thank common sense!
The foggyness with the issue of Taxation names stems in part from the concept of concocting the name of the source of a Tax, rather than naming it for the Expense for which it is being collected. I believe we, and our elected representatives, could more clearly look at, and decide upon, a proposed service if we named the tax that which it would pay for and priced it accordingly.
But primarily, for this View, let's change the present debate from Bush Tax Breaks, etc. to: Should we raise Present Tax Rates, or Cut Spending and revise Entitlements. Period, full stop!
We can't have it both ways. Everyone knows that real reductions in spending by governments must be made, and that an awful lot of that spending is on ourselves. They are the so-called entitlements. Well, I'm concerned that there are more entitlement dollars going out than there are tax dollars for them coming in, and that there will be greater than a rude awakening in the not too distant future: -there will be a disaster.
I believe some of the proposed entitlement changes being brought forth deserve full consideration; and immediate action. It is up to us to reshape the entitlements income/expense ratio in a balanced and sensible way for future generations.
There have been many past and passed good intentions and some parts of those programs are successful, such as Social Security as a safety net for a certain segment of our population. However, the 1930's life span and recipients personal needs have changed radically, and thus a course correction for Social Security is absolutely in order. I believe we should raise the eligibility age, offer opt-outs as a personal choice, review the currently covered persons, and place some practical income levels for SS benefit disqualification.
A lot more discussion is needed on the subject of Taxes, Expenses, and Entitlements, but this is a start. end, wmv
No comments:
Post a Comment