From: utzoo!utcsrgv!tjiang Newsgroups: can.politics Title: Re: taxes Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1024 Posted: Sun Feb 13 01:56:54 1983 Received: Sun Feb 13 04:51:09 1983 But Chris, I do know what progressive and regressive means. My point is that our current income tax system which ostensibly is PROGRESSIVE is really REGRESSIVE. A flat and simple (I obmitted this very important adjective last time) tax system would still have loopholes but there would be far fewer and they would be easier to close. I feel that any simple tax system would necessary have a fixed rate. In a truly progressive system where the marginal tax rates increases with income, incentive is diminished. Who would want to work harder for more money when you get less in return! To solve this problem the government institutes other forms of incentives, i.e. tax incentives. Too many of these and our tax laws become complex. To sum it up: "progressive => complex" which is the contrapositive of "simple => fixed". I have omitted the case of regressive taxes but it is pretty clear why that wouldn't work. Tax incentives have turned out to be one the most pernicious weapon that a government has. The example by Brian Thomson just goes to shows that the government will even try to control our behaviour with these incentives. After all, 1984 is only a year away. Unfortunately, a simple tax system is unlikely to be implemented. P.S. I have read that personal income taxes are still a temporary measure enacted by the parliament to fund military action during WWI. Is this true? This is not the case in the US where the government's right to tax is entrenched in the sixteenth amendment.