Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.taxes
Subject: Re: Abuse of social contracts. (tax system)
Message-ID: <399@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 13:46:58 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.399
Posted: Wed Feb 13 13:46:58 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 14:19:02 EST
References: <2748@dartvax.UUCP> <445@ahuta.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 26
Summary: simple tax system isn't necessarily possible

In article <445@ahuta.UUCP> 45223wc@ahuta.UUCP (Bill Cambre) writes:
||					Now if we had
||tax reforms to a simple tax code where everyone just paid x%,  I believe
||fewer people will cheat and we will all be happier knowing everyone pays
||relatively the same percentage.  But that's another discussion.

It sure is. A fixed percentage causes hardship for those with
low incomes. The progressive system of brackets and marginal
rates is perceived as the "fairest", and is used in both the
U.S. and Canada.

That isn't what makes the tax systems complex, though. In both
countries, the tax system is used for an extraordinary number
of policy objectives which have little or nothing to do with
raising revenue (e.g., subsidizing particular industries). On
top of that, there are legitimate reasons for complexity in the
system to avoid double taxation or unfair results in things like
corporate reorganizations, individuals earning income through a
corporation, etc. The marginal rates are the least of your worries.

Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
-- 
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave