I'm not trying to be obtuse, here, Ken, I honestly *do not understand*.
If Florida and Maryland have different state tax structures *now*, how is it *more* unfair for them to have different state tax structues *in the future*? Flat or not, progressive or not, they're not the same tax structure at all, and arguing that it *would be* unfair under a flat system as an argument for why flat systems are bad ignores that it's transparently equally as unfair *now*.
I'd understand if the example was "Joe has 4 kids and makes 60K. I have no kids and make 60K. We pay the exact same taxes. How is that fair?" - because THAT is a question that makes sense, and leads into the discussions on how to define and incentivise desirable behaviour from a government perspective. And you're right when you point out that, at and near (within a multiple of) the tax cutoff line, it doesn't do you much good to get a $10,000 tax-free bonus per kid if you aren't making any of that 10K.... but you're already paying more tax, now, than you would be in my hypothetical, and we're changing nothing except how your income tax is calculated, so how can "you pay less tax, nothing else has changed" be *worse* for you than the current system?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-23 07:18 pm (UTC)If Florida and Maryland have different state tax structures *now*, how is it *more* unfair for them to have different state tax structues *in the future*? Flat or not, progressive or not, they're not the same tax structure at all, and arguing that it *would be* unfair under a flat system as an argument for why flat systems are bad ignores that it's transparently equally as unfair *now*.
I'd understand if the example was "Joe has 4 kids and makes 60K. I have no kids and make 60K. We pay the exact same taxes. How is that fair?" - because THAT is a question that makes sense, and leads into the discussions on how to define and incentivise desirable behaviour from a government perspective. And you're right when you point out that, at and near (within a multiple of) the tax cutoff line, it doesn't do you much good to get a $10,000 tax-free bonus per kid if you aren't making any of that 10K.... but you're already paying more tax, now, than you would be in my hypothetical, and we're changing nothing except how your income tax is calculated, so how can "you pay less tax, nothing else has changed" be *worse* for you than the current system?