Alternate taxation system: you choose
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
I'd choose something completely different from the two options you offered. Something that makes sense, with people on the help phone lines who actually know something. I discovered today that I've been seriously misled by people at the Canada Revenue Agency's Helpless Desk. Our daughter is doing graduate studies at a foreign university, and I was told that her tuition fees and any expenses we pay for her are deductible only if she's in Canada. Turns out that's not true according to the paper tax guide I picked up at the post office today. Her tuition was $10K and we're paying her rent, $600 a month, but because I was told a year ago, before she left, that these were not deductible, I don't have and can't get the documentation to make the claims in time for the April 30th deadline. I can get it eventually and submit it and ask for a revision later, we can go back 10 years for revisions, but what a hassle. And in the meantime CRA has had the use of my money and her money and won't give us any useful amount of interest for the privilege when they eventually give it back to us.
I am completely convinced that CRA's attitude is that every penny you make belongs to them except what you can prove is yours, according to rules they get to make up, and they will not make any effort to make sure you've claimed all the deductions you're entitled to. They want it all.
Imagine the simplest possible tax form from CRA. Two lines:
1. How much did you make last year?
2. Send it in.
I hate them.
I am completely convinced that CRA's attitude is that every penny you make belongs to them except what you can prove is yours, according to rules they get to make up, and they will not make any effort to make sure you've claimed all the deductions you're entitled to. They want it all.
Imagine the simplest possible tax form from CRA. Two lines:
1. How much did you make last year?
2. Send it in.
I hate them.
I cold certainly agree with simpler tax rules. instead of having a 1001 low taxes, needing afriggin team of laywers and accountants to figure them out, we need a simple one, 2, 3 taxes at most. Let's say a flat personal income tax, a flat personal wealth tax, and a resource tax. We can up the tax if necessary, not not add another tax.
In a democratic system, the system must be understandable to all without a friggin degree. Once it get more complicated than that, it's not democratic anymore. Democracy requires understanidng as well as participation. If the system is too complicated to follow, we shoud just be allowed to ignore it. It's the politicians job to make it straightforward.
In a democratic system, the system must be understandable to all without a friggin degree. Once it get more complicated than that, it's not democratic anymore. Democracy requires understanidng as well as participation. If the system is too complicated to follow, we shoud just be allowed to ignore it. It's the politicians job to make it straightforward.
I actually like a regressive idea on taxes: no income tax whatsoever. I think luxuries should be taxed at a rate as necessary to maintain the related infrastructure. I do not own a vehicle, why should I pay taxes for road upkeep except what is necessary for the transportation of goods?
The major problem is the first thing I said, its regressive. Poorly implemented, it would impact those with the least incomes the most, and its an all or nothing idea: if one country sat out, people with money would buy from there.
The major problem is the first thing I said, its regressive. Poorly implemented, it would impact those with the least incomes the most, and its an all or nothing idea: if one country sat out, people with money would buy from there.
A resource tax would have some of the benefits you describe. The more gas or lumber you consume, the more tax you pay. So that money could go to infrastructure.
But as far as direct taxes are concerned (i.e. personal income and wealth taxes), they should be charity deductible, 100%.
What bugs me is those wealthy enough seem to have more tax break options open to them. Makes me laugh when during an election campaign they say they gave out so many millions in tax break that on an average house hold it comes out to a few measly dollars a week......(insert sarcasm )
I think we should seriously look at what is important to have to pay taxes for. Keep that to a possible minimum. i doubt very much there's much of an alternative tho. More effort on useless spending, that should be enough right there.
I think we should seriously look at what is important to have to pay taxes for. Keep that to a possible minimum. i doubt very much there's much of an alternative tho. More effort on useless spending, that should be enough right there.
Thats a way to go, but...
if so then the government should push for more personal wealth in stead of corporate wealth.
The flip side of it is ....the more you consume the harder it is on the enviroment.
The present system was and still is being written by people (and I use the term loosely) for whom there is a very special place is reserved in Hell, somewhere below mass murderers and pedophiles.
In my opinion a resonable (so that one would not need to be an accountant) and compassionate (so that even the poorest people would not be hurt by it) combination of consumption tax and a fixed rate income tax is the best solution.
In my opinion a resonable (so that one would not need to be an accountant) and compassionate (so that even the poorest people would not be hurt by it) combination of consumption tax and a fixed rate income tax is the best solution.
I had an Idea 12 , 13 years ago. Basically it was that your wages were taxed on 35 to 40 hours worked per week, anything over that was untouchable. This would give the option in some case to pull your self out of debt or spend it on something planned . In any event it mean more money to spend or invest. Money spent creates jobs. This could relieve the government on social programs and take that money to health and education.
It's called a consumption tax.. The more you consume, the more you pay in total dollars. The luxury items you refer too get hit with top tax %'s, while the basics are taxed lower. The only problem is in the cost of staples (milk/bread) that end up costing amounts that would be considered criminal in our society (ie current prices).
I'll argue that the overall benefits will outweigh the pitfalls you identified. More wealth in that system leads to more opportunities being financed (which requires a large employee base). Wages reflect the high cost of living (although this is offset by the non-existant or low income tax rate) and more often than not, the low-end of the spectrum in terms of income receive assistance to deal with the inflated costs of goods.
In teh end, the above system is the most fair and allows for greater opportunity to accumulate wealth in the entire spectrum of income levels.
Random consumption tax? Should we who eat healthy pay as much tax as we who drink, smoke, and load up our arteries with cholesterol?
If we have a public health system, I think our eating habits should be reflected in our tax contribution.
So while I could agree with a tax on resources (to preserve resources) or harmful substances like cigarettes, alcohol, etc, I don't agree with a simple sweeping consumption tax. If we're going to tax, let's make it strategic and goal-oriented.
Having said that, I still think we should keep the tax simple. In other words, not one tax for petrol a separate one for lumber, yet another for cigarettes, and another still for alcohol, etc.
Let's just have one tax with a simple yet clearly defined application. For example, 'natural resource'would be sweeping enough yet clearly understood as to its application. 'undesirable products' might be less clear owing to a wider range of definitions. For example, would a high-cholesterol T-bone steak be taxed or not. Depends on how strict we'd want to be in our definition here.
But certainly not an ill-thought out sweeping consumption tax with no clear objective.
Another thing is that I don't think wealth redistribution must necessarily be done through government bureaucracy. To take an example, let's say we scrapped corporate taxes altogether and replaced them instead with voting rights for all workers for the Board of directores, with workers being allowed to vote for workers too. For one thing, it would make labour unions redundant. Two, it would encourage movement towards workers' co-ops, and this would help transfer more ealth from the company to the workers without hainv to filter money through inefficient government bureaucracy.
Another way to make taxes effective yet simple would be, instead of having 1001 laws trying to regulate every circumstance, why not have strategically targetted laws can can kill many birds with one stone? To take an example, instead of all kinds of complicated tax brackets, and exemptions for this, that, kids, this, that and this tand that again, requiring a degree in accounting to figure it out, we could just have maybe four simple taxes:
1. Personal income tax of let's say 2 or 3 percent of income, deductible through charitable donations earmarked to help the poor. This just to make sure everyone makes at least a small contribution to society.
2. 5% or 6% Tax on personal accumulated non-essential wealth. Obviously, people with large families, disabilities, low salaries, etc., would find it harder to accumulate wealth in the first place, not to mention that they could also declare more of their wealth to be essential, compared with couples without children, healthy, lucky in life, etc. This would thus naturally make the wealthy or lucky, either way, pay more taxes than the others, without needing a complicated system of various tax brackets, exemptions for this, for that, and the other thing. One simple tax that would react naurally to all of these circumstances. And like the income tax, could be 100% tax deductible through charitable contributions.
3. A resource and undesirable consumption tax. 10% let's say. This would naturlaly push the cost of resource-inefficient goods and services up, while having less impact on resource-efficient goods and services, thus giving us an incentive to produce and buy green. This could also be a sure source of income for the government since it would not be tax-deductible unlike the direct taxes above.
4. An essential wealth cap. Any accumulated non-esential wealth above a predetermined amount would be taken by the government. People could avoid this by either spending their money, investing it in their businesses (essential wealth), or giving it to charity. Their choice. So the rich would have more responsibility to society, but would still have more say in how their money is spent. If they spend it, it creates jobs. If they invest it, their workers have more say in it through voting rights, and so the company can be more socially responsible, ensuring the money is used to benefit society through good business practices. If they give it to charity, a social benefit. And if they do nothing, the government takes it. But at least they have much say in how their money will go to help society.
5. Last source, fines obviously.
This would stil provide society with the funds needed, while still keeping taxes simple and straightforward, and still give people more say in how their tax-money is spent.
Another way to make taxes effective yet simple would be, instead of having 1001 laws trying to regulate every circumstance, why not have strategically targetted laws can can kill many birds with one stone? To take an example, instead of all kinds of complicated tax brackets, and exemptions for this, that, kids, this, that and this tand that again, requiring a degree in accounting to figure it out, we could just have maybe four simple taxes:
1. Personal income tax of let's say 2 or 3 percent of income, deductible through charitable donations earmarked to help the poor. This just to make sure everyone makes at least a small contribution to society.
2. 5% or 6% Tax on personal accumulated non-essential wealth. Obviously, people with large families, disabilities, low salaries, etc., would find it harder to accumulate wealth in the first place, not to mention that they could also declare more of their wealth to be essential, compared with couples without children, healthy, lucky in life, etc. This would thus naturally make the wealthy or lucky, either way, pay more taxes than the others, without needing a complicated system of various tax brackets, exemptions for this, for that, and the other thing. One simple tax that would react naurally to all of these circumstances. And like the income tax, could be 100% tax deductible through charitable contributions.
3. A resource and undesirable consumption tax. 10% let's say. This would naturlaly push the cost of resource-inefficient goods and services up, while having less impact on resource-efficient goods and services, thus giving us an incentive to produce and buy green. This could also be a sure source of income for the government since it would not be tax-deductible unlike the direct taxes above.
4. An essential wealth cap. Any accumulated non-esential wealth above a predetermined amount would be taken by the government. People could avoid this by either spending their money, investing it in their businesses (essential wealth), or giving it to charity. Their choice. So the rich would have more responsibility to society, but would still have more say in how their money is spent. If they spend it, it creates jobs. If they invest it, their workers have more say in it through voting rights, and so the company can be more socially responsible, ensuring the money is used to benefit society through good business practices. If they give it to charity, a social benefit. And if they do nothing, the government takes it. But at least they have much say in how their money will go to help society.
5. Last source, fines obviously.
This would stil provide society with the funds needed, while still keeping taxes simple and straightforward, and still give people more say in how their tax-money is spent.
You guys are forgetting one important aspect of our current tax system. It is largely a job creation project for bureaucrats (who would other wise be on welfare), accountants and lawyers who would have very little to do if the government and its employees were not so busy trying to steal from the taxpayers.
I could agree to that. That's why I tend to prefer a system whereby we have laws that encourage redistribution of wealth, but not through the government.
If we wre simply required to give to charities, or if companies were required to give workers voting rights, or if we wre required to give a %age of our income to a school of our choice, etc., this woud help the poor, it would build infrastructrue, etc., but not by having money go through the government. As for money going through the government, it shoud be minimal.
There are ways for the government to restructure the economic laws to ensure that money flows from rich to poor, but not necessarily through thegovernment. In other words, the government could tell John to give some money to Joe rather than take the money from John (possibly or likely skim some off the top), and give some crumbs to Joe.
Cannot answer the poll as your choices are too limited.
Here in the States the problem with the tax system is that it allows sheltering of income sources and assets for the wealthy while imposing an unfair burden on the middle class. Suggested reforms:
/ Eliminate tax overseas tax shelters and other shields.
/ Eliminate tax exempt status of churches - or, limit their tax exclusion to religious activities, only. Any financial gains attributable to business will be taxed at ordinary rates.
/ Recapture of uninvested subsidies.
/ Eliminate corporate tax loopholes.
/ Windfalls from ownership of foreign businesses to be taxed.
/ Extend statute of limitations for corporate or other tax frauds from 6 to 15 years or possibly longer.
I uphold our Founders ideals in restricting taxes to commercial rather than direct taxes. However, since the politicians have created so many deficits, I would hold off any further reform until their deficits are fully paid for. Note that I would not increase taxes for the middle and working classes as we are not at fault for the economic mess and unfair tax system we have today.
Here in the States the problem with the tax system is that it allows sheltering of income sources and assets for the wealthy while imposing an unfair burden on the middle class. Suggested reforms:
/ Eliminate tax overseas tax shelters and other shields.
/ Eliminate tax exempt status of churches - or, limit their tax exclusion to religious activities, only. Any financial gains attributable to business will be taxed at ordinary rates.
/ Recapture of uninvested subsidies.
/ Eliminate corporate tax loopholes.
/ Windfalls from ownership of foreign businesses to be taxed.
/ Extend statute of limitations for corporate or other tax frauds from 6 to 15 years or possibly longer.
I uphold our Founders ideals in restricting taxes to commercial rather than direct taxes. However, since the politicians have created so many deficits, I would hold off any further reform until their deficits are fully paid for. Note that I would not increase taxes for the middle and working classes as we are not at fault for the economic mess and unfair tax system we have today.
/ Eliminate tax overseas tax shelters and other shields.
Could agree to that depending on how it is defined. For example, would investment in your business be considered a tax shelter? I'd say seeing that investments are things you might rely on later, they shouldn't be taxed until they are taken out of their investment status. Though i could see businesses giving workers voting rights in the board of directors to ensure that they have more say in how the company is run. This would still help to redistribute wealth between companies and workers but not necessarily through government bureaucracy.
/ Eliminate tax exempt status of churches - or, limit their tax exclusion to religious activities, only. Any financial gains attributable to business will be taxed at ordinary rates.
Depends on what they do with the money. Much of their money also goes to charitable causes, so it would be like taxing that money twice, once on personal incomes of contributors, and again upon receipt by the church.
Any business dealings are a different matter obviously. But then they shouldn't be getting involved in business.
/ Recapture of uninvested subsidies.
fair enough.
/ Eliminate corporate tax loopholes.
If we give workers voting rights on boards of directors, then we wouldn't need to tax businesses at all. Workers woud receive higher salaries and their income would be taxed anyway. So essentially, it woud still be paying taxes, but indirectly through its workers' salaries.
/ Windfalls from ownership of foreign businesses to be taxed.
isn't there a risk then that it be taxed twice? Each country should tax any income or wealth received within its borbers, not without. I disagree with extraterritoriality sinse it means two jurisdictions overlapping which inevitably leads to confusion and sometimes hainving to pay twice as much in taxes as others.
/ Extend statute of limitations for corporate or other tax frauds from 6 to 15 years or possibly longer.
As mentioned above, I don't even see why we'd eed to tax corporations at all if we could just give workers more voting rights within the companies, with workers' salaries being taxed. Otherwise, they're paying the tax twice, once directly and then again to compensate workers who want higher salaries to compensate for their own income taxes.
I uphold our Founders ideals in restricting taxes to commercial rather than direct taxes. However, since the politicians have created so many deficits, I would hold off any further reform until their deficits are fully paid for. Note that I would not increase taxes for the middle and working classes as we are not at fault for the economic mess and unfair tax system we have today.[/quote]
Well, I'd probaly go in reverse. Cut corporate taxes altogether but reform boards of directors to ensure more money goes to the workers. This way corporations have more flexibility in whether to give more to the workers or re-invest in themselves to create more jobs. But I would agree with paying off debts before cutting taxes.
Could agree to that depending on how it is defined. For example, would investment in your business be considered a tax shelter? I'd say seeing that investments are things you might rely on later, they shouldn't be taxed until they are taken out of their investment status. Though i could see businesses giving workers voting rights in the board of directors to ensure that they have more say in how the company is run. This would still help to redistribute wealth between companies and workers but not necessarily through government bureaucracy.
/ Eliminate tax exempt status of churches - or, limit their tax exclusion to religious activities, only. Any financial gains attributable to business will be taxed at ordinary rates.
Depends on what they do with the money. Much of their money also goes to charitable causes, so it would be like taxing that money twice, once on personal incomes of contributors, and again upon receipt by the church.
Any business dealings are a different matter obviously. But then they shouldn't be getting involved in business.
/ Recapture of uninvested subsidies.
fair enough.
/ Eliminate corporate tax loopholes.
If we give workers voting rights on boards of directors, then we wouldn't need to tax businesses at all. Workers woud receive higher salaries and their income would be taxed anyway. So essentially, it woud still be paying taxes, but indirectly through its workers' salaries.
/ Windfalls from ownership of foreign businesses to be taxed.
isn't there a risk then that it be taxed twice? Each country should tax any income or wealth received within its borbers, not without. I disagree with extraterritoriality sinse it means two jurisdictions overlapping which inevitably leads to confusion and sometimes hainving to pay twice as much in taxes as others.
/ Extend statute of limitations for corporate or other tax frauds from 6 to 15 years or possibly longer.
As mentioned above, I don't even see why we'd eed to tax corporations at all if we could just give workers more voting rights within the companies, with workers' salaries being taxed. Otherwise, they're paying the tax twice, once directly and then again to compensate workers who want higher salaries to compensate for their own income taxes.
I uphold our Founders ideals in restricting taxes to commercial rather than direct taxes. However, since the politicians have created so many deficits, I would hold off any further reform until their deficits are fully paid for. Note that I would not increase taxes for the middle and working classes as we are not at fault for the economic mess and unfair tax system we have today.[/quote]
Well, I'd probaly go in reverse. Cut corporate taxes altogether but reform boards of directors to ensure more money goes to the workers. This way corporations have more flexibility in whether to give more to the workers or re-invest in themselves to create more jobs. But I would agree with paying off debts before cutting taxes.
'Workers' have the identical opportunity to be the boss, all you need is to risk your own money and own neck. As far as bigger business are concerned, more often than not they are public... Buy one share and receive one vote. The board is voted-in at the AGM. Want a voice? Put your money where your mouth is.
Most of the charities I am familiar with are tax deductible. Increasing pressure on the upper/middle income earners via new taxes sees an overall reduction on their contributions in total.
Exactly who will determine what 'non-essential' wealth is?.. Will the formula be based on the approved cost of living per person and anything above is taxed into oblivion?
Tobacco, alcohol and gas are the current whipping-boys of the tax system.. Have been for years.
... Anyone with the cash will simply leave and take their money to live/work/invest/give to charities/employ and pay taxes in a jurisdiction that doesn't penalize those that do have and create the wealth.
Why bother re-investing? That may lead to more profits that will be deemed non-essential and confiscated by the state... Why on Earth would someone risk their money and time to with no possible reward attached to that risk and work?
Again, the workers have every opportunity to invest/risk their cash, make the decisions and run the business.
Define 'funds needed' as opposed to the insatiable appetite of society to consume the freebies offered by gvt to garner votes?.. The reality is that everyone wants a say in how the money is spent, provided that it offers an immediate benefit and doesn't come directly out of their pocket...
'Workers' have the identical opportunity to be the boss, all you need is to risk your own money and own neck. As far as bigger business are concerned, more often than not they are public... Buy one share and receive one vote. The board is voted-in at the AGM. Want a voice? Put your money where your mouth is.
Fair enough. But I still don't think companies should be taxed. Just find some other way to ensure that the company be responsive to society. It could use that tax break for safety instruction to workers, or other things to improve the working conditions, salaries, or environmental sustainability. how can a company do that if it's taxed to the hilt.
Most of the charities I am familiar with are tax deductible. Increasing pressure on the upper/middle income earners via new taxes sees an overall reduction on their contributions in total.
I can agree. That's why i'd suggested a 2 or 3% income tax. Compare that to what we have now. That would be a significant drop.
Exactly who will determine what 'non-essential' wealth is?.. Will the formula be based on the approved cost of living per person and anything above is taxed into oblivion?
Granted that might be complicated. But we could give the tax-payer the benefit of the doubt whenever there is doubt. Accommodation is necessary. If you live far from work, transport is necessary. If you're self-employed, your business is necessary. if you have no other source of retirment income, your savings for future retirement are necessary. We could be flexible on the definition here of course.
Tobacco, alcohol and gas are the current whipping-boys of the tax system.. Have been for years.
Well, if you smoke, you put an added burden on the health system. I can see only two options:
1. tax unhealthy foods, tobacco, alcohol. Or
2. (my favoured option) privatize health care. That way, veg-heads like me can get a break on our insurance premiums while you boozers, Mc-stuffers, and chimneys could pay your fair share.
... Anyone with the cash will simply leave and take their money to live/work/invest/give to charities/employ and pay taxes in a jurisdiction that doesn't penalize those that do have and create the wealth.
I had the idea of an extremely high tax ceiling. Anyone who got that rich would clearly be just a hogger anyway. Do we really want a person sho just hogs till he gets 10,000,000$ rich?
And remember, i mentioned already that this would be non-essential wealth only. If he stopped hogging the money and invested it in his company instead, then he could avoid the tax and create jobs for others. His options would be there. How much money does one really need?
Why bother re-investing? That may lead to more profits that will be deemed non-essential and confiscated by the state... Why on Earth would someone risk their money and time to with no possible reward attached to that risk and work?
All he'd have to do is keep investing the money in his company if he doesn't want it taxed. Or just spend it on cruises every year, or give more to charity, etc. Plenty of options available to those who really don't want to pay higher taxes. But just hording their money without creating any kind of job should be toerated only to a certain degree. Beyond a certain amount of accumulated non-essential wealth, it's time to give it, spend it, invest it or something for the benefit of society. We can give them options as to how they'll do that, but just hording indefinitely should not be accepted beyond a certain limit.
Again, the workers have every opportunity to invest/risk their cash, make the decisions and run the business.
I can agree to that. I was just suggeting an alternative to taxing corporations if the goal is redistribution of wealth. There are better ways to do so than through government. Perhaps my idea there was not the best, but it was just an idea I was throwing out there as an alternative to taxing corporate income as a means to redistributing wealth without the government having to get its hands on it. Certainly you might have a better idea.
Define 'funds needed' as opposed to the insatiable appetite of society to consume the freebies offered by gvt to garner votes?.. The reality is that everyone wants a say in how the money is spent, provided that it offers an immediate benefit and doesn't come directly out of their pocket...
Ihonestly see nothing wrong with our direct taxes being charity deductible There are plenty of organizations out there in need of our money and doing a great job, instead of just bloating government bureaucracy.
Fair enough. But I still don't think companies should be taxed. Just find some other way to ensure that the company be responsive to society. It could use that tax break for safety instruction to workers, or other things to improve the working conditions, salaries, or environmental sustainability. how can a company do that if it's taxed to the hilt.
Most of the charities I am familiar with are tax deductible. Increasing pressure on the upper/middle income earners via new taxes sees an overall reduction on their contributions in total.
I can agree. That's why i'd suggested a 2 or 3% income tax. Compare that to what we have now. That would be a significant drop.
Exactly who will determine what 'non-essential' wealth is?.. Will the formula be based on the approved cost of living per person and anything above is taxed into oblivion?
Granted that might be complicated. But we could give the tax-payer the benefit of the doubt whenever there is doubt. Accommodation is necessary. If you live far from work, transport is necessary. If you're self-employed, your business is necessary. if you have no other source of retirment income, your savings for future retirement are necessary. We could be flexible on the definition here of course.
Tobacco, alcohol and gas are the current whipping-boys of the tax system.. Have been for years.
Well, if you smoke, you put an added burden on the health system. I can see only two options:
1. tax unhealthy foods, tobacco, alcohol. Or
2. (my favoured option) privatize health care. That way, veg-heads like me can get a break on our insurance premiums while you boozers, Mc-stuffers, and chimneys could pay your fair share.
... Anyone with the cash will simply leave and take their money to live/work/invest/give to charities/employ and pay taxes in a jurisdiction that doesn't penalize those that do have and create the wealth.
I had the idea of an extremely high tax ceiling. Anyone who got that rich would clearly be just a hogger anyway. Do we really want a person sho just hogs till he gets 10,000,000$ rich?
And remember, i mentioned already that this would be non-essential wealth only. If he stopped hogging the money and invested it in his company instead, then he could avoid the tax and create jobs for others. His options would be there. How much money does one really need?
Why bother re-investing? That may lead to more profits that will be deemed non-essential and confiscated by the state... Why on Earth would someone risk their money and time to with no possible reward attached to that risk and work?
All he'd have to do is keep investing the money in his company if he doesn't want it taxed. Or just spend it on cruises every year, or give more to charity, etc. Plenty of options available to those who really don't want to pay higher taxes. But just hording their money without creating any kind of job should be toerated only to a certain degree. Beyond a certain amount of accumulated non-essential wealth, it's time to give it, spend it, invest it or something for the benefit of society. We can give them options as to how they'll do that, but just hording indefinitely should not be accepted beyond a certain limit.
Again, the workers have every opportunity to invest/risk their cash, make the decisions and run the business.
I can agree to that. I was just suggeting an alternative to taxing corporations if the goal is redistribution of wealth. There are better ways to do so than through government. Perhaps my idea there was not the best, but it was just an idea I was throwing out there as an alternative to taxing corporate income as a means to redistributing wealth without the government having to get its hands on it. Certainly you might have a better idea.
Define 'funds needed' as opposed to the insatiable appetite of society to consume the freebies offered by gvt to garner votes?.. The reality is that everyone wants a say in how the money is spent, provided that it offers an immediate benefit and doesn't come directly out of their pocket...
Ihonestly see nothing wrong with our direct taxes being charity deductible There are plenty of organizations out there in need of our money and doing a great job, instead of just bloating government bureaucracy.