tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11020751.post6475464898838034129..comments2023-10-08T11:10:46.457-04:00Comments on Countersignature: Spreading the wealth.cshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117846384130187926noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11020751.post-52740489908243867242008-10-27T15:57:00.000-04:002008-10-27T15:57:00.000-04:00Granted, it's not like Obama is proposing tax cred...Granted, it's not like Obama is proposing tax credits out of the blue; there's a long and honored history of the government using them to encourage pet causes. I'm just wondering how far many more tax credits we can sustain - that is, how much of the population not paying income taxes are we willing to tolerate? The marginal effect of Obama's new tax credits will be to increase that number. Everyone should pay *something* in income taxes, if for no other reason that universality and the unity that results. Isn't that why Democrats resisted Republican efforts to alter Social Security in 2005? Because it's a universal program, available for every American citizen, and that's one of the program's virtues? <BR/><BR/>Social programs are another issue entirely, especially because the tax code is a blunt instrument for offering incentives. Ask yourself why we have such huge subsidies for ethanol even though food prices are rising dramatically and you'll understand my point there.<BR/><BR/>If I haven't said this before, I'm enjoying your writing and the give-and-take. Nice to know that some of you Communists out there are reasonable. =)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11020751.post-4832896477130838342008-10-27T09:49:00.000-04:002008-10-27T09:49:00.000-04:00Michael: Thanks for the logical response. The gove...Michael: Thanks for the logical response. The government has provided tax credits in the past for all sorts of things -- home ownership for instance -- and I see Obama's plan as a logical extension of those sorts of programs. It also doesn't hurt that I'm interested in seeing very low income citizens getting more support from our government -- support that's been gutted by nearly thirty years (including the Clinton years) of mean-spirited nickel and diming of social programs.cshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14117846384130187926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11020751.post-49814970829778221592008-10-27T09:24:00.000-04:002008-10-27T09:24:00.000-04:00There's a big, bright-line difference between that...There's a big, bright-line difference between that basic function of government - providing public goods - and "spreading the wealth around." I disagree that roads, schools, and police and fire protection are the result of "spreading the wealth." They're public goods provided by the government because there's no easy way to exclude "free riders."<BR/><BR/>This is in direct contrast to what the Obama tax plan proposes: to redistribute *more* money (through refundable tax credits) to the roughly 33% of Americans who pay no income tax. Or to put it more bluntly, the check these households receive from the IRS each year will get bigger. That doesn't make the tax code more "progressive." <BR/><BR/>A progressive tax code is one in which the wealthy pay a larger percentage of their income, under the theory that they have more, so they can pay more. Makes perfect sense. But when up to a third of taxpaying households don't pay *any* income tax, cutting them larger checks each April doesn't seem to be the logical next step.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com