The hot topic here in IL is that the governor has proposed a plan that would essentially tax businesses to pay for every citizen in the state to be covered by health insurance.
Business owners cry foul, of course, claiming they'll pack up and move to Wisconsin or some such. Or, at the very least, it will be passed on to consumers. It's the same argument as happens when they try to raise the minimum wage.
I just took a survey for the DNC asking me my opinions on key topics and one question was whether or not I support a tax cut on working Americans. I noted that, more than tax issues, what concerns me is the way the federal government spends money. I have no problem with taxes as long as they are being used wisely. It is the "no taxation without representation" thing that gets us though, right? Taxes have to be going to meet public needs--mainly, benefit the constituents.
There are no local income taxes here in IL, just state tax so that the sales taxes are crazy. 9% or so compared to 5-6% in Ohio. But I think a simple flat tax punishes people on low-end goods in some ways. I'd be more supportive of a graduated, categorized flat tax which increases the percent depending on the item and how much it costs.
In other words, you should pay more tax on a new BMW than on a pair of pants. The pants maybe should have a 5% tax. The BMW, a 10% tax. Bottom line is that those who can most afford it should be the ones who pay more to the government and the little guy should get a break.
I think that has been the criticism of Bush is that while spending was out of control under his reign, he pushed through tax cuts that benefit the wealthy while things like higher education and middle income folks feel the squeeze of higher prices, etc..
My argument would be that I'm not for big or small government. I don't care about size, I care about use. Big or small government can be just as ineffective either way. The more important thing is that government is taking in revenue wisely and then spending it wisely.
no subject
Business owners cry foul, of course, claiming they'll pack up and move to Wisconsin or some such. Or, at the very least, it will be passed on to consumers. It's the same argument as happens when they try to raise the minimum wage.
I just took a survey for the DNC asking me my opinions on key topics and one question was whether or not I support a tax cut on working Americans. I noted that, more than tax issues, what concerns me is the way the federal government spends money. I have no problem with taxes as long as they are being used wisely. It is the "no taxation without representation" thing that gets us though, right? Taxes have to be going to meet public needs--mainly, benefit the constituents.
There are no local income taxes here in IL, just state tax so that the sales taxes are crazy. 9% or so compared to 5-6% in Ohio. But I think a simple flat tax punishes people on low-end goods in some ways. I'd be more supportive of a graduated, categorized flat tax which increases the percent depending on the item and how much it costs.
In other words, you should pay more tax on a new BMW than on a pair of pants. The pants maybe should have a 5% tax. The BMW, a 10% tax. Bottom line is that those who can most afford it should be the ones who pay more to the government and the little guy should get a break.
I think that has been the criticism of Bush is that while spending was out of control under his reign, he pushed through tax cuts that benefit the wealthy while things like higher education and middle income folks feel the squeeze of higher prices, etc..
My argument would be that I'm not for big or small government. I don't care about size, I care about use. Big or small government can be just as ineffective either way. The more important thing is that government is taking in revenue wisely and then spending it wisely.