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