Mar

24

The Atlanta Fed has done a very good job of explaining why "the poor" are literally trapped by the tax code. The marginal rate someone pays for leaving public assistance and working for a living is higher than the maximum "progressive" tax rate that a rich person pays on an extra dollar of income.

The Economic Report of the President (see Chapter 3) also makes this point.

If progressives really cared about "the poor", they would end this confiscation of the rewards of labor. Benefits would be taxed just like other incomes and the transition from public assistance to work incomes would be treated the same way retirees' incomes above the Social Security limit are taxed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of what the Brits call a "universal credit". In a system where everyone receives the same stipend and the stipend is subject to tax, "fairness" becomes a rhetorical question. What made Social Security and Medicare so attractive as a social program and what makes them the one part of the Federal budget that only a political fool talks about "cutting" was the fact that literally everyone with an income was treated the same way. In Stefan's magic system the universal tax rate would be 12%.

It would apply to all incomes people received of whatever kind, from whatever source. That one rate would replace all other Federal taxes, including Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, et al. The maximum rate would be 32%. The brackets can be left to the whims of the CBO. This would eliminate the massive frauds of the current Earned Income Tax Credit and reduce the administrative costs of Federal public assistance to the levels of the Social Security benefit administration, which are an order of magnitude lower than all other programs' costs (HUD housing, WIC, et al.).

It would also eliminate unemployment insurance taxes and benefits because EVERYONE would be on the same dole. Most important, it would end the absurd posturing about "entitlements" - i.e. Social Security and Medicare - by having the society integrate the costs of the deserving with the undeserving instead of uselessly trying to separate them. If everyone is entitled to "universal" coverage, there is no incentive to try to separate society into categories of relative need. There is also an enormous incentive for people to save money so they can afford "more" than the universal minimum.

The greatest advantage of all would be that the rich - those evil people - would "pay more" even though their tax rates would be reduced. When societies genuinely honor people's rights equally and remove the threat of future confiscation, incomes literally soar. That explains the seeming illogic of PERMANENT reductions in tax rates producing PERMANENT increases in tax collections. It is truly amazing what risks people will take if they have confidence that they will, in fact, reap most of the rewards and have the government only collect on the same rate schedule that everyone has already agreed to pay.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search