Perhaps in a different world it would be possible, but we have already proven that the affluent will lobby or elect representation that will write legislation that is favorable to them at the expense of the poor. If there were some way to limit the deductions so that, for example, a family who owned a competitive dancing horse as a hobby would not be allowed to deduct that as a business expense...and you know to whom I refer here....well, it MIGHT work...but I doubt it.
The issue as I see it is the increasing separation of our population into have's and have not's...if we can't stop the bleeding in that issue soon I fear we will have class warfare, and that didn't work out too well for Marie Antoinette, now, did it? Eventually the downtrodden will arise in angry rebellion (well, the TEA party already is, I admit, although I have a difficult time thinking of them as downtrodden) and if anger is involved surely violence isn't far behind.
Surely you admit that companies owning expensive properties solely to use as perks for their executives has little to do with the necessities of running their business. Sure, I've heard the arguments....it takes those perks to attract quality employees. Well, if those type of perks were not allowed as business expenses, then nobody would have an advantage...and, gee, perhaps, just perhaps, those businesses who operate on a shoestring might have a fighting chance to attract those very same quality employees who right now are bought by the rich corporations and individuals.
There just has to be a better way...no deductions for the business man, no deductions for the working man, just a straight, say, 9 or 10 % tax rate on GROSS income. I don't know, it just doesn't seem to me that the current status quo is really working for our society...sure, it's working for a few lucky individuals, but for our society as a whole, not so much.
Conservatives continually point out that in excess of 40% pay no income taxes...a statistic which I do not believe, BTW, because for most of my life I was in that 40% and I certainly don't remember even one year in which I didn't pay ANY income taxes. However, with my plan the poor would have to pay their "fair" share and it that was equivalent to the share paid by the affluent, well, maybe it might avert a societal upheaval that could threaten the entire country....I don't know, just doesn't seem to me that we're doing much about it. One answer might be to incorporate everyone...that way the poor could take advantage of the same business deductions as do the affluent....I could see making things even in the opposite manner to that which I described above....just make things "even" and "fair", that's all I care about.
Sorta like insisting that EVERYONE either have health insurance or pay some sort of penalty to cover the cost of those who don't have health insurance. Surely that's not such a unique idea, I suppose somebody has already thought of it....might have to check that out.
Cheers!!!
Doug
